NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/01/29/913848.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not his war

U.S. deserters put their faith in Canada

By Jason Botchford, Toronto Sun

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hundreds of American soldiers are preparing to come to Canada if this country again opens its doors to war resisters.

Toronto lawyer Jeffry House, who is representing Jeremy Hinzman's landmark refugee case, said 200 have contacted him alone, mostly since George W. Bush was re-elected in November, looking for a way out.

Darrell Anderson knows why.

Seven months in combat

After serving in combat in Baghdad for seven months, the 22-year-old Kentucky-bred soldier turned his back on his home, his family -- including his 4-year-old daughter -- and his country to come to Toronto two weeks ago so he didn't have to go back to Iraq and train his gun on one more innocent child.

He is the most recent soldier to desert the American army and come to Canada

At home in Lexington, KY, over Christmas, Anderson read about Hinzman, a paratrooper turned Iraq-war-deserter, who is waiting for a Canadian tribunal to decide next month whether he is a refugee for refusing to fight.

"I saw his story and I saw hope for me," Anderson said. "I was not going back to Iraq to kill innocent people. I couldn't see myself making another decision. I didn't want to live a life where I was hiding in my own country."

House, himself a Vietnam draft dodger, said there are many others like Anderson waiting for the results of Hinzman's landmark case. Never before has there been a Canadian case dealing with American deserters.

"There are a lot people contacting me, wanting to know what would happen if they came to Canada," House said. "They are looking for ways out."

An estimated 5,500 men and women have deserted since the invasion of Iraq, reflecting Washington's growing problems with troop morale.

Anderson is the most recent soldier to come here. He is one of six known American military deserters who fled to Canada rather than go to war or face jail terms. All of them insist they were acting responsibly by refusing to fight what they all call an unjust war.

Anderson made his decision after going home at Christmas following seven months of combat in Iraq, where he won a bravery medal.

"It is just so intense in Iraq," Anderson said. "Many people will face the same question I had. I asked myself, 'Can I die over there? Can I go back and fight this unjust war?' "

The answer two weeks ago, just before Anderson slipped into a car and drove to Canada, was an emphatic ''no.'' But Anderson concedes that his decision was really made for him just about a year ago when he was still in Iraq.

In Baghdad, a car had approached too close to his platoon. He could hear other American soldiers screaming at him to open fire. When the motorist hit the brakes, sparks flew. The intensity piqued. People screamed: "What are you doing? Why aren't you firing?"

Anderson didn't move.

"I felt no threat, I felt the car posed no threat. I wasn't in any danger," Anderson said. "And then the windows rolled down and it was an innocent family. Two parents and some kids in the back. If I would have fired I would have killed innocent kids."

Anderson said he then turned to those fellow soldiers who were screaming at him.

"After that they said, 'Next time you open fire, you do what you're told,' " Anderson said. "They were ordering me to shoot, ordering me to kill innocent people."

Lee Zaslofsky, of Resisters, a Toronto-based group dedicated to helping deserters, is lobbying the government to make it easier for deserters like Anderson to come to Canada.

"We want the government to make it clear that they are going to be welcoming people and allowing them to stay," said Zaslofsky, one of an estimated 60,000 Americans who came here after to dodge the Vietnam War draft. "It's what Canadians want. It's what Canada has done in the past.

"The government should bite the bullet and step up to the plate and do what is right. These are human beings. Do we want to offer them up as sacrifices to the altar of good relations with George Bush?"

During the Vietnam War, Canada had one of the most open immigration policies in the world. People who showed up at the border were given "landed-immigrant" status on the spot. In 1969, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau instructed immigration officials not to discriminate against applicants because they hadn't fulfilled their military obligations in other countries.

But immigration in Canada now is much more restricted and the country is divided over whether the new era of deserters should be allowed to stay.

Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board has already ruled that Hinzman's claim that the war was illegal was not relevant to his case. The board is expected to determine in March whether Hinzman proved that he would face social persecution if sent home.

The United States Army treats deserters as common criminals, posting them on "wanted" lists with the FBI, state police forces and department of homeland security border patrols.

Unlike the Vietnam era, Canada has not encouraged deserters to seek asylum here and detractors are quick to note that this generation of American troops voluntarily signed up.

Still, there are a large number of people in Toronto willing and ready to help any soldiers who come here.

A group of deserters and old Vietnam War draft dodgers meet every week in Toronto. Sometimes they watch football games, other times they play cards, but all the time they talk about Iraq and the decisions they've made.

Cliff Cornell, 24, came to Toronto Jan. 8. The Arkansas resident was stationed in Georgia. His platoon was to be deployed to Iraq just after this past Christmas. He did not want to go.

He joined the army for a chance at an education but when he saw and heard what was happening in Iraq he made his decision.

He said being able to meet Anderson has helped him immeasurably.

"He wanted to know if it was really as bad as he's heard," Anderson said. "It is. Others ask me that. They want to know if they made the right decision. I tell them how you take your crappy Humvees out in the morning and ride them around Baghdad, hoping not to get blown up."

Anderson joined the army when he was in high school. He had just had a daughter, Tatum, and looked to the army as a way to better himself, a way to get an education and care for his family.

By the time he was deployed to Iraq a year ago he had been in training for one year.

"I was ready to die and defend my country thinking it would make a better life for my (now ex-) wife and daughter," Anderson said.

But that changed. During one of the most dramatic sequences Anderson was driving in a howitzer tank. His friend had just dropped down from his lookout position out of the hatch, bleeding and dying in Anderson's lap.

"I had to immediately take the lookout position and my gun was aimed at this kid who was running by," Anderson said. "It looked like he was carrying something. I pulled the trigger but nothing happened. The safety was still on. That's when I saw it was just an innocent kid. I thought, 'What is my country doing to me? What is my country making me do?' "

Anderson later won a medal for bravery during a firefight. He was leaning out the hatch of his howitzer when a bomb landed near by. Shrapnel ripped through his right side.

When Anderson came home for Christmas he said he was lonely. No one could understand what he had seen and survived.

He said it was impossible to talk to strangers, difficult to talk to even his family.

He said deciding to come to Canada was the most difficult decision he's ever had to make.

"I understand the consequences are the most severe," Anderson said. "I may never be able to go to the United States again. I may never be able to go home. But there was no other decision I could make."

The night before he left for Canada, Anderson saw his daughter.

"I told her I love her, I told her that her daddy will always love her."

Uh... this isn't like draft doging. Soldiers sign a contract when they join the military. They know that as members of the US military, they'll potentially be involved in a war, even an unpopular war, a war they don't agree with. Tough. It's what you agreed to do.

I think voluntary members of the military who try to back out of their obligations should be fully prosecuted.

Uh... this isn't like draft doging. Soldiers sign a contract when they join the military. They know that as members of the US military, they'll potentially be involved in a war, even an unpopular war, a war they don't agree with. Tough. It's what you agreed to do.

I think voluntary members of the military who try to back out of their obligations should be fully prosecuted.

That's why I called the thread "Deserter Storm" and not "Draft Dodgeball". Besides, there is no draft *ahem*, yet.

Draft dodgeball. I like that.

I doubt there will be a draft, at least, not soon. The military doesn't want draftees. They learned their lesson in Vietnam.

Draft dodgeball. I like that.

I doubt there will be a draft, at least, not soon. The military doesn't want draftees. They learned their lesson in Vietnam.

Well, they'll have to find the manpower somewhere if Bush wants more troops. Where do you suppose they'll find it - Korean war vets? Outsourcing? Or just tap into the college crowd?

Deserters frequently were shot, excecuted, or hunted down like bandits in the past. Its always a difficult subject. These are frequently good men, but they have betrayed their vow to their nation for personal reasons.

The sad part is, if caught, they are often merely placed in the stockade, to wait out a prison term, dishonorably discharged, and let go. Is that really more of a sentance than living in exile without being able to see your friends or family?

The US army, unlike many armies of the past, has programs and systems for dealing with those who do not wish to fight for personal reasons. These systems and programs do not always work, and troops are forced to chose between being a criminal and being a killer of people against their will.

I know of several people who want to join the military, who feel it is the right place for them, but have no wish to sign up under the current administration.

The feeling of being sent into conflict for the wrong reasons is something I cannot possibly comprehend myself, but I try to imagine it and shudder. It must be a soul-shredding, mind-numbing experience; killing people not as a soldier, but as a man taken hostage by his naiton and made to kill.

Well, they'll have to find the manpower somewhere if Bush wants more troops. Where do you suppose they'll find it - Korean war vets? Outsourcing? Or just tap into the college crowd?

How many impoverished Iraqis and Afghans do you reckon you could get for the wages that one American soldier would expect?

Even if they did sign a contract, let's think about most of the people who enlist - those who can't afford a post-secondary education and see the military as a way of providing it because their family can't afford it. Maybe they want to indeed serve their countries, but they obviously don't want to hurt the innocent and they are human after all!

Well, they'll have to find the manpower somewhere if Bush wants more troops. Where do you suppose they'll find it - Korean war vets? Outsourcing? Or just tap into the college crowd?

The military can acquire new human resources the same way any other organization in the country can: get its shit together and have a recruiting drive.

Hmm. Several things stand out about this article and the soldier in particular.

Firstly, although he is from kentucky, he has never been taught proper gun protocol. He was on lookout and kept his safety on. And he just automatically shoots a target not running towards him. Sounds to me like he has a real problem firing his gun at all. Secondly he's a friggin moron as evidenced by this quote When Anderson came home for Christmas he said he was lonely. No one could understand what he had seen and survived. Last time I checked Vietnam vets were still alive. Lastly he has decided to abandon not only his country, with which he signed a voluntary contract that said he would do stuff like this, but he has also just upped and abandoned his family. From what the article says, he has yet to kill any innocents, although in one case only because his incompetence at lookout was canceled out by his incompetence with a firearm(someone needs to send his drill instructors through basic again). So he hasn't really done things no one could understand.

The military can acquire new human resources the same way any other organization in the country can: get its shit together and have a recruiting drive.


Did you read about the marines just failed to meet their monthly recruiting goal for the first time in ten years?

5500 deserters? That's surprising.

A friend of mine signed up the marines, he wanted to be a marine since, i dunno... 8th grade or something. Right after high school he signed up, and about a month ago i saw him around, and he told me that he was being shipped off to iraq in April... he already looked like he was about to shit himself. He actually looked as if he was afraid of being forgotten for some reason. I never liked the military not because of the wars and violence and all, but simply because it aims to destroy an individual and make him nothing more than a part of a greater mechanism (fighting unit). He has to be one with the system and not think for himself. Don't question orders, just do your job. Regardless, a war cannot be won when the fighters do not believe in their cause, and that's why Iraq and Afghanistan will both prove to be a failure... you cannot change a people's culture and way of thought with an invasion, to try to do so is itself a monument to stupidity. Of course people will desert, no one's do die being a pawn of someone else's foolishly ideological "war on terror". You can't delcare a war on terror, just like you can't declare war on drugs... well you can but you'll be just as successful in it as you would be in a declaration of war on eating... or any other act.

you cannot change a people's culture and way of thought with an invasion, to try to do so is itself a monument to stupidity.
There are quite a few groups who would disagree with you. I mean, the Japanese didn't kick the Jesuits out because they were having no effect.

Those poltroons should be shot. No two ways about it. Also their families should be kicked out of the country as a warning to others with like minded cowardly ideas.

In the event that Canada does not surrender these traitors to us, we should send millitary forces to capture them and return them to US soil, where they can be shot.

*phones Gen William J Donovan's parents*

"Mm-hmm."

"Yup, again."

"No, it was deserters this time."

"Thanks, buh bye."

*phones Gen William J Donovan's parents*

"Mm-hmm."

"Yup, again."

"No, it was deserters this time."

"Thanks, buh bye."

What I want to know is this; where did someone like that, with their obviously stunted understanding of the human condition, find the word "poltroons" and figure out how to properly use it in a sentence?

Hell, the first and only time I saw that word being used was in a book, and the character was made fun of for using such an outdated word!

Uh... this isn't like draft doging. Soldiers sign a contract when they join the military. They know that as members of the US military, they'll potentially be involved in a war, even an unpopular war, a war they don't agree with. Tough. It's what you agreed to do.

I think voluntary members of the military who try to back out of their obligations should be fully prosecuted.

Exactly!

Draft dodgeball. I like that.

I doubt there will be a draft, at least, not soon. The military doesn't want draftees. They learned their lesson in Vietnam.

The people don't want a draft. The military doesn't want a draft. Those of "draftable age" don't want a draft. And the politicians definitely don't want a draft. Ergo: there will be no draft.

It makes more sense to let them out of the military, what's worse for moral then having a bunch of troops who don't want to fight.

It makes more sense to let them out of the military, what's worse for moral then having a bunch of troops who don't want to fight.

Exactly.

I mean, what are you going to do, sit them down and shout 'BE HAPPY DAMMIT!"

You end up either sticking a source of poor morale into a combat unit, moving them into a non-combat role, or discharging them.

No-one wins in the first, deserter wins in the second two.

*phones Gen William J Donovan's parents*

"Mm-hmm."

"Yup, again."

"No, it was deserters this time."

"Thanks, buh bye."

Nahhh, let him, he may be an idiotic fascist murderer, but he's too dumb, powerless and despicable to be any problem.

Well the Jesuits were doing a good job, but not through invasion... You know they were tremendously succesfful in China, and even held philosophical/theological debates with the chinese in their highest courts and such, but China is still mostly non-Christian, and even before the communists only a small fraction of them were.

yeh the poltroons was a surprise... what book was it?

I still say wars should be settled by a duel between the countries' leaders... Bush vs. Saddam, locked in one room, both given swords... only one of them is allowed to come out of the room alive... the other nations can place bets on it too. This way leaders would really THINK before declaring war, and the loss of life would be minimized.... and a profit could be turned... whats to lose?

Well the Jesuits were doing a good job, but not through invasion... You know they were tremendously succesfful in China, and even held philosophical/theological debates with the chinese in their highest courts and such, but China is still mostly non-Christian, and even before the communists only a small fraction of them were.
Didn't say China, I said Japan. And it was an invasion.

Really? I've never heard of it (and i go to a Jesuit school) do tell more, i'm curious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/missionaries3.html


"When Francis Xavier arrived in Japan in 1549 he found a country in the grip of what became known as the Age of the Warring States. Great feudal families and even powerful Buddhist monasteries threw their vast private armies into battle as they fought for territory and power. The new religion from Europe evidently had a certain appeal amid all this chaos – the success of the early Jesuit missionaries in Japan is a story that is not often told but it is one of the extraordinary episodes in the history of the church. Dr Andrew Ross is author of “A Vision Betrayed; A history of the Jesuits in Japan and China”

They were umm, forcibly removed sometime after their conversions had become successful and somewhat popular.

While it is true that people who join the US Military do sign an agreement, and swear an oath of allegiance, why should they be the only ones in this mess held to what they signed/swore to?

The elected Senators and Congressional Representatives of the United States swore an oath as well. Then they abbrogated their responsibilities under the United States Constitution with regard to declarations of war and validation of treaties - which are clearly the responsibility of Congress. The Legislative Branch of the government was given these powers to PREVENT THOSE POWERS FROM BEING IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON, THE PRESIDENT, REGARDLESS OF WHO THAT PERSON WAS. But, Congress just signed that all over to Bush on what was/is clearly an unconstitutional vote.

The United States signed on to the United Nations - and inherent in that little act was the responsibility to follow the rules - just as the US Federal Government expects the various States to follow the rules. No where does it say anything like, "But, if you don't agree with the majority, you should just go off and do what ever the hell you like." Yet the President did just that - took his figurative football and went home.

So, it would seem that it's quite all right for the United States to agree to abide by the rules and decisions of the United Nations, and then when it's inconvenient to do so for the President to fail to honor that commitment. And, it would seem it's also quite all right for the Congress of the United States to fail to honor their commitment to the Constitution to be the branch of government responsible to declare war or sign treaties when it's not convenient for them to do so.

But it's not all right for individuals, who want no part of the war and inherent killing that George W. Bush decided to have on his own, to decide not to honor their commitment.

How is that? The President can choose not to honor a clear commitment of the United States that he accepted when he took the job, the Congress can choose not to honor a clear commitment given them in the Constitution, which they accepted when they took the job, but this soldier must honor his commitment?

Doesn't seem quite fair to me.

Edit - a little after-thought. Got to thinking about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, all their cohorts, and all those sad little Senators and Congressional Representatives who voted to give their Constitutional Responsibility to GWB. How is it that I don't see them all lined up at an Army Recruiting office somewhere?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/missionaries3.html




They were umm, forcibly removed sometime after their conversions had become successful and somewhat popular.Read "Shogun". It's very informative on the Jesuits in Japan, and a really good book besides.

Those poltroons should be shot. No two ways about it. Also their families should be kicked out of the country as a warning to others with like minded cowardly ideas.

In the event that Canada does not surrender these traitors to us, we should send millitary forces to capture them and return them to US soil, where they can be shot.This is exactly what Saddam Hussein would do. How droll. How ironic.

How idiotic.

Interesting stuff on the link, and droll is a good word.

Draft dodgeball. I like that.

I doubt there will be a draft, at least, not soon. The military doesn't want draftees. They learned their lesson in Vietnam.
they dont want draftees, they jsut want thousands of more troops to go and fight a pointless war and start another several

droll is a good word.

Not as good as...

*drum roll...*

Newman!

It makes more sense to let them out of the military, what's worse for moral then having a bunch of troops who don't want to fight.

What's worse for moral if they desert? Desertion in a time of war can be punishable by death.

That is why if you join the military, make sure you want too because once your in, there is really no way out short of retiring and a discharge.

Those poltroons should be shot. No two ways about it. Also their families should be kicked out of the country as a warning to others with like minded cowardly ideas.

In the event that Canada does not surrender these traitors to us, we should send millitary forces to capture them and return them to US soil, where they can be shot.

...and break a number of laws and treaties in the process? Methinks not, Herr General...

...and break a number of laws and treaties in the process? Methinks not, Herr General...

Canada should honor those treaties then, and return the poltroons to the US, where they can be dealt with after an appropriate fashion.

I doubt it will happen though, as Canada is frequently recreant in respect of its international obligations. Indeed, it feels free to ignore international law almost at whim.

Canada, should try and emulate the US, and abide by the international agreements it makes.

Canada should honor those treaties then, and return the poltroons to the US, where they can be dealt with after an appropriate fashion.

I doubt it will happen though, as Canada is frequently recreant in respect of its international obligations. Indeed, it feels free to ignore international law almost at whim.

Canada, should try and emulate the US, and abide by the international agreements it makes.
Someone got his hands on a thesaurus.

Canada, should try and emulate the US, and abide by the international agreements it makes.

The US broke international law by declaring a WAR, you moron!

The United States signed on to the United Nations - and inherent in that little act was the responsibility to follow the rules - just as the US Federal Government expects the various States to follow the rules. No where does it say anything like, "But, if you don't agree with the majority, you should just go off and do what ever the hell you like." Yet the President did just that - took his figurative football and went home.

Actually according to the US Constitution the UN can't tell us jack shit.

...and break a number of laws and treaties in the process? Methinks not, Herr General...
Quit feeding the damned trolls. I would think you'd know better.

The US broke international law by declaring a WAR, you moron!

I hardly think so. War authority has always resided with the US congress. The US's actions in Iraq are completely legal.

Actually according to the US Constitution the UN can't tell us jack shit.
Which article is this?

I hardly think so. War authority has always resided with the US congress. The US's actions in Iraq are completely legal.

You would know, with your extensive knowledge of international law...

You would know, with your extensive knowledge of international law...

I know enough to know that the relevant aspects of international law you are refering are Ius Gentium Privatum and are not acknowledged, and therefore non-binding, upon US policy.

I know enough to know that the relevant aspects of international law you are refering are Ius Gentium Privatum and are not acknowledged, and therefore non-binding, upon US policy.

The US signed up to the UN, and should, therefore, abide by its laws, unless you admit that the US is a rogue state, forfeiting your right to complain when whatever country invades you out of the blue.

The US signed up to the UN, and should, therefore, abide by its laws, unless you admit that the US is a rogue state, forfeiting your right to complain when whatever country invades you out of the blue.

The UN is a probouleutic body only, and places no impedement on our soveriegn powers. Nor have we signed treaties that do so. Thus the war cannot be "illegal" as you term it, if no other reason than there are no sanctions that can be imposed.

Contrast this with our WTO agreements.

Canada should honor those treaties then, and return the poltroons to the US, where they can be dealt with after an appropriate fashion.

I doubt it will happen though, as Canada is frequently recreant in respect of its international obligations. Indeed, it feels free to ignore international law almost at whim.

Canada, should try and emulate the US, and abide by the international agreements it makes.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!~~~~~~~~~

I'm crying I'm laughing so hard! You should really be a comedian!

Canada follows more international obligations than the US could pull out of its ass.

If we tried to emluate the US, the world would be screwed. Besides, why would we want to act like a bunch of ignorant bellicose gun-toting bible thumping Republicraps anyway?

The UN is a probouleutic body only, and places no impedement on our soveriegn powers. Nor have we signed treaties that do so. Thus the war cannot be "illegal" as you term it, if no other reason than there are no sanctions that can be imposed.

Contrast this with our WTO agreements.
"Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!~~~~~~~~~

I'm crying I'm laughing so hard! You should really be a comedian!

I am glad you find Canada's lackadaisical attitude towards its international obligations a source of amusement.

Canada follows more international obligations than the US could pull out of its ass.

Canada is the signatory to more international agreements. It is however, remarkably lax in abiding by them. Unlike the US, which abides by the agreements it signs. Indeed, the US has only ever failed to abide by one international treaty, and that is only after extensive warning and negotiation with the other parties that it intended to withdraw.

If we tried to emluate the US, the world would be screwed.

I don't think it matters much what Canada does. Internationally it is of virtually no consequence.

"Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

United States Constitution
Article 6.
Clause 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Canada is the signatory to more international agreements. It is however, remarkably lax in abiding by them. Unlike the US, which abides by the agreements it signs. Indeed, the US has only ever failed to abide by one international treaty, and that is only after extensive warning and negotiation with the other parties that it intended to withdraw..
just to prove you arnt pulling this shit out of your ass, why dont you start naming treaties and provide written support

Another draft-doger . . . makes me sick, especially seeing how a teacher at my school in the National Guard just got called up.

"Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

What you have cited to is the UN charter, not a treaty. Therefore it is not binding upon the US, nor can it be considered to form part of the US Jus Gentium Privatum

If it were, it would require executing legislation - which it does not have - and further, said legislation would be unconsitutional.

Therefore, the US involvment in Iraq is not "illegal" and should not be considered as such.

United States Constitution
Article 6.
Clause 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

:confused: Why are you citing this? Or are you of the belief that the Constitution can be amended by treaty?

just to prove you arnt pulling this shit out of your ass, why dont you start naming treaties and provide written support


US Canada Border treaty.

:confused: Why are you citing this? Or are you of the belief that the Constitution can be amended by treaty?

What the clause says is that all laws in the United States, including treaties, must be consistent with the Constitution. Judges must hold the Constitution above all other law. In other words, the UN can't tell us when we can and cannot go to war. Asking them is little more then a formality that fosters peace and unity. It is by no means manditory.

edit: so I'm agreeing with you.

Quit feeding the damned trolls. I would think you'd know better.

Nothing wrong with feeding them...rope, that is...

Besides, I've been labelled a 'troll' many a time, Bookie. I'd've thought you'd've known that.

What the clause says is that all laws in the United States, including treaties, must be consistent with the Constitution. Judges must hold the Constitution above all other law. In other words, the UN can't tell us when we can and cannot go to war. Asking them is little more then a formality that fosters peace and unity, but is by no means manditory.

edit: so I'm agreeing with you.

My apologies. I misunderstood.

As you are no doubt aware, there are some misguided individuals that do not share this interpretation and believe, wrongheadedly, that the US can, in fact, cede its soveriegnty without recourse to Article V procedures. Nonsense, of course.

What the clause says is that all laws in the United States, including treaties, must be consistent with the Constitution. Judges must hold the Constitution above all other law. In other words, the UN can't tell us when we can and cannot go to war. Asking them is little more then a formality that fosters peace and unity. It is by no means manditory.

edit: so I'm agreeing with you.
Not necissarily. What I'm saying is that we broke international law, not national law. We can do whatever the hell we damn please (so long as it is constitutional), its just the fact that we are breaking a treaty when we did what we did.

US Canada Border treaty.



Please tell me in witch way we violate that treaty????

Another draft-doger . . . makes me sick, especially seeing how a teacher at my school in the National Guard just got called up.

But they're not draft-dodgers, they're deserters. That's what the article is about. You can complain about draft-dodgers when a draft is called.

Not necissarily. What I'm saying is that we broke international law, not national law. We can do whatever the hell we damn please (so long as it is constitutional), its just the fact that we are breaking a treaty when we did what we did.

Probably true. Whether it was right or not depends on whether you think the war was in our best interests, what ever our best interests happen to be. I believe that it was.

Therefore, the US involvment in Iraq is not "illegal" and should not be considered as such.

Illegal? Well, I'm no expert on international law so I can't comment on that. Immoral? Most definitely. The reason Bush gave the American people for going to war was to protect the USA and her citizens from WMDs that Iraq possessed, the exact same reason that Tony Blair gave us. Waddaya know? Its bullshit. There are no WMDs and no plans to make any. All theyv'e found so far is a couple of empty chemical artillery shells.

When the US signed up to the Un, it was expected to FOLLOW THE RULES, the same as everyone else. You can't pick and choose when it suits you. Here in the UK we have a similiar problem with the European Union. Lots of people have problems with the rules, but the pros far outway the cons.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti war or anti US, and I'm certainly proud of my country - I served 6 years in the Royal Navy, although I never saw combat. I just think that this single, particular war hasn't been thought through properly, planned properly or executed properly by any of the nations involved, and history is going to dump on those leadsers from a great height.

Please tell me in witch way we violate that treaty????

Read the article at the top of this thread. The mere fact that the named individual has not been arrested by the Canadian authorities and returned to US authorities is a prima facie violation.

There is no doubt in my mind, that if the reverse situtation was true, the US would quickly return any and all deserters to Canada.

...history is going to dump on those leadsers from a great height.

A veritable orbital bombardment of historical excrement, I'd expect...

There is no doubt in my mind, that if the reverse situtation was true, the US would quickly return any and all deserters to Canada.

Don't be so sure. The current US administration does a great line in locking up foriegn nationals without charge, trial or conviction.

Read the article at the top of this thread. The mere fact that the named individual has not been arrested by the Canadian authorities and returned to US authorities is a prima facie violation.

There is no doubt in my mind, that if the reverse situtation was true, the US would quickly return any and all deserters to Canada.
Mind citing the document showing that Canada has an obligation to do so?

Not necissarily. What I'm saying is that we broke international law, not national law. We can do whatever the hell we damn please (so long as it is constitutional), its just the fact that we are breaking a treaty when we did what we did.

To have broken international law, we would have to have failed to abide by our own treaty obligations with respect to another nation. For example, had we had a treaty with Iraq undertaking not to invade, unless and until certain conditions were breeched by the Iraqi regime, then indeed we would be in violation of international law, provided Iraq observed the stated conditions.

In this case however, we have arguably acted against the letter of the UN charter, however as I pointed out before, the UN is merely a probouleutic body, and thus undertakings made in regards to it, do not have the force of law.

Indeed, the UN itself recognizes this. Unfortunately, internationlist rhetoric has the habit of labelling any millitary action of which they do not approve "illegal" in order to give the blush of legitimacy to any subsequent retaliation or millitary sanctions. Over time, this has become the prevailing opinion. Neverthless, the fact remains, absent specific treaties, a sovereign nation can declare war on any other soveriegn nation at any time, for any reason, and it is not illegal. (Though it may be frowned upon).

Mind citing the document showing that Canada has an obligation to do so?

US Canada Border Treaty, 2002.

Don't be so sure. The current US administration does a great line in locking up foriegn nationals without charge, trial or conviction.

I have no doubt that any deserters from the Canadian millitary would be returned forthwith.

US Canada Border Treaty, 2002.
The words.

To have broken international law, we would have to have failed to abide by our own treaty obligations with respect to another nation. For example, had we had a treaty with Iraq undertaking not to invade, unless and until certain conditions were breeched by the Iraqi regime, then indeed we would be in violation of international law, provided Iraq observed the stated conditions.

In this case however, we have arguably acted against the letter of the UN charter, however as I pointed out before, the UN is merely a probouleutic body, and thus undertakings made in regards to it, do not have the force of law.

Indeed, the UN itself recognizes this. Unfortunately, internationlist rhetoric has the habit of labelling any millitary action of which they do not approve "illegal" in order to give the blush of legitimacy to any subsequent retaliation or millitary sanctions. Over time, this has become the prevailing opinion. Neverthless, the fact remains, absent specific treaties, a sovereign nation can declare war on any other soveriegn nation at any time, for any reason, and it is not illegal. (Though it may be frowned upon).
We have a treaty though the UN not to use violence to resolve conflicts except as a last resort. We broke that. Umkay?

US Canada Border Treaty, 2002.
We want the article, not a vague description!

Besides, what about the US pulling out of the treaty to curb and ban nukes? Or, the many rulings by the WTO which has ruled in Canada's favour on the lumber trade, which is protected by NAFTA? Or maybe the UN... Or the one to protect women's rights that the US had signed but won't follow due to its stance on abortion? I'm pretty sure that there are more if i were to run a google search.

"Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Damn, I guess we are no longer part of the UN and can seize their holdings in US territory.

We have a treaty though the UN not to use violence to resolve conflicts except as a last resort. We broke that. Umkay?

It is not a treaty. We are signotaries to the UN charter. It is not part of the corpus of US Jus Gentium Privatum . There is no executing legislation, and nor does the UN expect any. We are also signatories to the UN declaration of Human Rights, (as are all other members of the UN, including Iraq). No-one is bound by that either. Why are you having such difficulty with this concept?

Nothing wrong with feeding them...rope, that is...

Besides, I've been labelled a 'troll' many a time, Bookie. I'd've thought you'd've known that.
Of course you have been, but I try to limit trolliness where I post. For most people, troll is not the default setting.

Canada, should try and emulate the US, and abide by the international agreements it makes.
The US routinely breaks international law more than any other western nation. Its respect for international law is more comparable to that of Sadda's Iraq than to any country in Europe or Canada.

It is not a treaty. We are signotaries to the UN charter. It is not part of the corpus of US Jus Gentium Privatum . There is no executing legislation, and nor does the UN expect any. We are also signatories to the UN declaration of Human Rights, (as are all other members of the UN, including Iraq). No-one is bound by that either. Why are you having such difficulty with this concept?
char·ter Audio pronunciation of "charter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chärtr)
n.

1. A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority, creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or bank, and defining its privileges and purposes.
2. A written grant from the sovereign power of a country conferring certain rights and privileges on a person, a corporation, or the people: A royal charter exempted the Massachusetts colony from direct interference by the Crown.
3. A document outlining the principles, functions, and organization of a corporate body; a constitution: the city charter.
4. An authorization from a central organization to establish a local branch or chapter.
5. Special privilege or immunity.
6.
1. A contract for the commercial leasing of a vessel or space on a vessel.
2. The hiring or leasing of an aircraft, vessel, or other vehicle, especially for the exclusive, temporary use of a group of travelers.
7. A written instrument given as evidence of agreement, transfer, or contract; a deed.

We want the article, not a vague description!

Besides, what about the US pulling out of the treaty to curb and ban nukes? Or, the many rulings by the WTO which has ruled in Canada's favour on the lumber trade, which is protected by NAFTA? Or maybe the UN... Or the one to protect women's rights that the US had signed but won't follow due to its stance on abortion? I'm pretty sure that there are more if i were to run a google search.

The only treaty that the US pulled out of, is the treaty on anti-ballistic missles. We have scrupulously adhered to all treaty regarding nuclear capability and the non-proliferation of neuclear weapons. (Unlike France and Canada).

As you may or may not be aware, the US has abided by the terms of its WTO agreements, and the lumber dispute you are referring to has yet to be fully adjudicated.

A treaty on womans rights is a silly concept in international law, and can have no force.

Another draft-doger . . . makes me sick, especially seeing how a teacher at my school in the National Guard just got called up.
If they were truly draft dodgers, I would have no beef with them. They are instead volunteers who were told in advance that they would have to follow the orders given to them unless they violated the oath they took upon becoming a soldier.

char·ter Audio pronunciation of "charter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chärtr)
n.

1. A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority, creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or bank, and defining its privileges and purposes.
2. A written grant from the sovereign power of a country conferring certain rights and privileges on a person, a corporation, or the people: A royal charter exempted the Massachusetts colony from direct interference by the Crown.
3. A document outlining the principles, functions, and organization of a corporate body; a constitution: the city charter.
4. An authorization from a central organization to establish a local branch or chapter.
5. Special privilege or immunity.
6.
1. A contract for the commercial leasing of a vessel or space on a vessel.
2. The hiring or leasing of an aircraft, vessel, or other vehicle, especially for the exclusive, temporary use of a group of travelers.
7. A written instrument given as evidence of agreement, transfer, or contract; a deed.

You have access to a dictionary. Congratulations. This means nothing.

The US routinely breaks international law more than any other western nation. Its respect for international law is more comparable to that of Sadda's Iraq than to any country in Europe or Canada.

France, then the UK.

In this case however, we have arguably acted against the letter of the UN charter, however as I pointed out before, the UN is merely a probouleutic body, and thus undertakings made in regards to it, do not have the force of law.

Indeed, the UN itself recognizes this. Unfortunately, internationlist rhetoric has the habit of labelling any millitary action of which they do not approve "illegal" in order to give the blush of legitimacy to any subsequent retaliation or millitary sanctions. .

So let me get this straight. Saddam Hussein (whom I have absolutely no wish to defend whatsever) broke UN rules time and time again. So, The US and the UK broke the UN rules and invaded, to stop him breaking the rules. Ever feel like your going round in circles?

If every nation in the world decided that UN rules and recommendations wern't worth paying attention to, the world would be in a whole heap of trouble. Slate the UN all you like (and their a damn far way from perfect in any sense) but they have helped to hold relative peace through the world for the last 60 years.

Damnit, if Canada gets invaded, all the smart people no longer have a place to get away from the stupid people who voted for Bush.

Damn you.

Lets see now......were going to have to try England. Or maybe Australia. Sweden?

Internationsl law should be followed scrupulously.... if you are not the US.
That is a good point Ollie.

But I don't think the General has any interest in a peaceful world.

So let me get this straight. Saddam Hussein (whom I have absolutely no wish to defend whatsever) broke UN rules time and time again. So, The US and the UK broke the UN rules and invaded, to stop him breaking the rules. Ever feel like your going round in circles?

If every nation in the world decided that UN rules and recommendations wern't worth paying attention to, the world would be in a whole heap of trouble. Slate the UN all you like (and their a damn far way from perfect in any sense) but they have helped to hold relative peace through the world for the last 60 years.

Actually, the legal justification for the invading Iraq, was the existence of a triple nexus between terrorism, rogue state status and the potential to manufacture WMDs.

The important part however, is not that the UN rules and recommendations are not worth paying to, but rather that they do not have the force of law. Ignoring them is often not "illegal" under the respective countries body of international law.

Other nations are still free to condemn these actions, take appropriate measures, and formulate policies to ameliorate the situation - although sometimes they just choose to use it indulge in foolish and petty name calling.

This is where the UN comes in. It provides an ideal forum for this type of activity. In fact that is exactly how it functions best. This is why it is most accurately described as a probouleutic assembly.

Running around yelling that the US was in Iraq was illegal however, is simply ignorant. I

If they were truly draft dodgers, I would have no beef with them. They are instead volunteers who were told in advance that they would have to follow the orders given to them unless they violated the oath they took upon becoming a soldier.

No wyour getting to the crux of the issue. Whether we agree with the war or not is pointless. These men signed up to their national armed forces with the full knowledge that they could go to war and end up killing someone, whether that victim is innocent or not.

Five years ago I attended the funeral of a friend who was in the Royal Marines. He had personnally killed 2 Argentinian soldiers in the Falklands conflict, and as it turned out they were trying to surrender. It left him a broken man. He recieved very little help or councilling from the Royal Marines and climbed into a whisky bottle for the next fifteen years before hanging himself. It was because of this I made the decision not to re-inlist after my two terms of service with the Royal Navy.

I'm relating this storry to try to illustrate what war does to people. It can turn the strongest of men into gibbering wrecks, and anyone wanting to join the armed forces of any nationm shoiuld consider this carefully before signing on the dotted line. I realised I wouldn't be able to handle such a thing, and got out (legally) when the opportunity arose. The individual in question on this thread would have had numerous options open to him otjer than desertion. I certainly don't advocate hanging or punishment for such an individual. It may sound callous considering my own experiences, but it sounds like this man has no place in the army.

I certainly don't advocate hanging or punishment for such an individual. It may sound callous considering my own experiences, but it sounds like this man has no place in the army.
Had he come directly out and voiced his position to his superiors there would have been a dishonorable discharge and possibly some jail time depending on the mood of those judging his case. Probably not a lot of time, however.

Actually, the legal justification for the invading Iraq, was the existence of a triple nexus between terrorism, rogue state status and the potential to manufacture WMDs.

The important part however, is not that the UN rules and recommendations are not worth paying to, but rather that they do not have the force of law. Ignoring them is often not "illegal" under the respective countries body of international law.

Other nations are still free to condemn these actions, take appropriate measures, and formulate policies to ameliorate the situation - although sometimes they just choose to use it indulge in foolish and petty name calling.

This is where the UN comes in. It provides an ideal forum for this type of activity. In fact that is exactly how it functions best. This is why it is most accurately described as a probouleutic assembly.

Running around yelling that the US was in Iraq was illegal however, is simply ignorant. IThe point I was making had nothing to do with what was LEGAL versus ILLEGAL. The point was failure to honor a commitment. The commitment's I listed in my post were NOT honored, setting a fine example for anyone else who chooses NOT to honor their commitments. Such as soldiers dragged into a war they believe to be wrong.

As to the war in Iraq being legal - that would depend entirely on what set of laws you choose as the microscope through which to view it - and how much you pay your lawyer. After all, we (the United States) just confirmed as Attorney General, the highest lawyer in the land, a dimwitted yes-man who was instrumental in obtaining a legal opinion/opinions to the effect that torture is quite all right under certain circumstances, and of course those circumstances just happen to be the circumstances surrounding the taking of the Prisoners-Not-Of-War we are holding incommunicado in, of all places, Guantanamo - conveniently NOT within the US. Perhaps we should start calling them PNOWs?

The fact is we started a war without waiting to find out whether or not the premises for it were valid. Two of the three you mention were not. But, there we are, killing our way to victory. Oh, sorry, I forgot - victory was months ago - GWB said so.

You have a great vocabulary - but you're using it to distort the facts to meet the outcome you want. That way lies...lies.

Canada has an extradition treaty with the U.S. This article, while not devoted to it, mentions that Canadians have to extradite people who commit a crime in America punishable by at least a year in jail and flee to Canada. Since the penalty for desertion is death, that qualifies.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_August_19/ai_106701630

After all, we (the United States) just confirmed as Attorney General, the highest lawyer in the land, a dimwitted yes-man who was instrumental in obtaining a legal opinion/opinions to the effect that torture is quite all right under certain circumstances, and of course those circumstances just happen to be the circumstances surrounding the taking of the Prisoners-Not-Of-War we are holding incommunicado in, of all places, Guantanamo - conveniently NOT within the US. Perhaps we should start calling them PNOWs?
CEC's Captured enemy combatants.

Canada has an extradition treaty with the U.S. This article, while not devoted to it, mentions that Canadians have to extradite people who commit a crime in America punishable by at least a year in jail and flee to Canada. Since the penalty for desertion is death, that qualifies.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_August_19/ai_106701630
Only if its a crime in both countries punishable by at least a year in jail...and deserting from the US army isn't a crime in Canada.

Only if its a crime in both countries punishable by at least a year in jail...and deserting from the US army isn't a crime in Canada.
And deserting it's own military forces?

Only if its a crime in both countries punishable by at least a year in jail...and deserting from the US army isn't a crime in Canada.
Deserting from the Canadian "army" is.

And deserting it's own military forces?
Would be a crime. However, leaving the US army, last time I checked, wasn't a crime in Canada. Nor has the US requested them to arrest/expell them, at least that I have heard of.

Would be a crime. However, leaving the US army, last time I checked, wasn't a crime in Canada. Nor has the US requested them to arrest/expell them, at least that I have heard of.
Shooting an American in America isn't a Canadian crime. Dodging American income taxes in America isn't a Canadian crime. And yet, wonder why income tax evaders flee to Switzerland and not Canada? CAUSE IT'S A CRIME IN CANADA. Ergo, the same is said for militaries. And yes, the U.S. asked Canada to extradite Vietnam deserters and dodgers before. Canada broke international law and did not.

Would be a crime. However, leaving the US army, last time I checked, wasn't a crime in Canada. Nor has the US requested them to arrest/expell them, at least that I have heard of.
Would the Canadians expect us to turn over one of their deserters if he ran to America, probably. If their punishment is more than a year in jail than they must be extradited. The analogue is clear in that there is a punishment and both forces are strictly volunteer.

Shooting an American in America isn't a Canadian crime. Dodging American income taxes in America isn't a Canadian crime. And yet, wonder why income tax evaders flee to Switzerland and not Canada? CAUSE IT'S A CRIME IN CANADA. Ergo, the same is said for militaries. And yes, the U.S. asked Canada to extradite Vietnam deserters and dodgers before. Canada broke international law and did not.
Murder is a crime in canada...

Those poltroons should be shot. No two ways about it. Also their families should be kicked out of the country as a warning to others with like minded cowardly ideas.

In the event that Canada does not surrender these traitors to us, we should send millitary forces to capture them and return them to US soil, where they can be shot.


WTF? lol ok General

Murder is a crime in canada...
Exactly! How are you being so stupid? It's not a crime in Canada to murder an American on American soil. But you can be extradited for it if you flee to Canadian. It's not a crime to desert America's army in Canada. But you can be extradited for it? Why? Because they have a law that says the exact same thing except replacing the word "America" with "Canada."

Exactly! How are you being so stupid? It's not a crime in Canada to murder an American on American soil. But you can be extradited for it if you flee to Canadian. It's not a crime to desert America's army in Canada. But you can be extradited for it? Why? Because they have a law that says the exact same thing except replacing the word "America" with "Canada."
Have they requested for him to be extradited yet?

The only treaty that the US pulled out of, is the treaty on anti-ballistic missles. We have scrupulously adhered to all treaty regarding nuclear capability and the non-proliferation of neuclear weapons. (Unlike France and Canada).

As you may or may not be aware, the US has abided by the terms of its WTO agreements, and the lumber dispute you are referring to has yet to be fully adjudicated.

A treaty on womans rights is a silly concept in international law, and can have no force.

When the fuck did canada start building nukes? Dude, you are a fucking wing nut, is your shit for real?

And nafta and the WTO has already ruled in favour of canada a couple of times as per the lumber dispute...

Have they requested for him to be extradited yet?
Him who? The deserter at the beginning? I wouldn't know, they generally don't put out a front page article in my local newspaper about the U.S. asking for a deserter back.

Him who? The deserter at the beginning? I wouldn't know, they generally don't put out a front page article in my local newspaper about the U.S. asking for a deserter back.
So the points moot until they ask for him back.

When the fuck did canada start building nukes? Dude your a fucking wing nut, is your shit for real?
Nukes aren't the only thing in the ABMT. Did he say they were building nukes? Then ok, stfu.

So the points moot until they ask for him back.
They asked for Vietnam veterans back. They didn't get them and we finally got fed up and pardoned them. And by pardoned, I mean a certain President pussied out.

Would the Canadians expect us to turn over one of their deserters if he ran to America, probably. If their punishment is more than a year in jail than they must be extradited. The analogue is clear in that there is a punishment and both forces are strictly volunteer.

Agreed. However much you disagree with the war (and I do) this man made certain obligations that he has failed to keep. There were plenty of other courses open to him other than running off to Canada which he failed to take. I find the fact that he run off from his family and children much more distasteful than the fact that he ran away from an armed conflict. Anyone think he might have other motives to wantin to stay in Canada?

Nukes aren't the only thing in the ABMT. Did he say they were building nukes? Then ok, stfu.


Whats this french? can you read??

The only treaty that the US pulled out of, is the treaty on anti-ballistic missles. We have scrupulously adhered to all treaty regarding nuclear capability and the non-proliferation of neuclear weapons. (Unlike France and Canada).

:rolleyes:

EDIT : I guess he must mean the USA invasion of IRAQ to get rid of all the nukes, sorry that went completly over my head. I dont know people who still believe in that total BS :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Shooting an American in America isn't a Canadian crime. Dodging American income taxes in America isn't a Canadian crime. And yet, wonder why income tax evaders flee to Switzerland and not Canada? CAUSE IT'S A CRIME IN CANADA. Ergo, the same is said for militaries. And yes, the U.S. asked Canada to extradite Vietnam deserters and dodgers before. Canada broke international law and did not.

The US broke international law by STARTING A WAR. Pot, this is kettle. You're black.

They asked for Vietnam veterans back. They didn't get them and we finally got fed up and pardoned them. And by pardoned, I mean a certain President pussied out.
Thus clearing a certain failed presidential candidates record which later allowed him to run for office and lose.

Whats this french? can you read??

The only treaty that the US pulled out of, is the treaty on anti-ballistic missles. We have scrupulously adhered to all treaty regarding nuclear capability and the non-proliferation of neuclear weapons. (Unlike France and Canada).

:rolleyes:
Non-profileration doesn't mean building nukes. And that was in regards to France, who do in fact have nukes. What he meant was Canada's violation of building certain prohibited non-nuclear ballistic missiles.

Thus clearing a certain failed presidential candidates record which later allowed him to run for office and lose.

Sorry, my US current affairs isn't up to scratch. Would that be John Kerry?

When the fuck did canada start building nukes? Dude, you are a fucking wing nut, is your shit for real?

And nafta and the WTO has already ruled in favour of canada a couple of times as per the lumber dispute...


NAFTA is outside the ambit of the GATT. You are confusing the two. Neverthless the Lumber dispute has not yet been fully adjudicated.

Moreover the US is in full compliance with its WTO obligations, as evidenced by the outcome with the dispute involving the EU and the ACP nations.

The US broke international law by STARTING A WAR. Pot, this is kettle. You're black.
It didn't. It got approval for the Security Council. Besides, does that make it ok? By your logic, no one should ever be held to any standard, since every country has broken a resolution at one time or another.

Non-profileration doesn't mean building nukes. And that was in regards to France, who do in fact have nukes. What he meant was Canada's violation of building certain prohibited non-nuclear ballistic missiles.

Ahhh, well we in canada having never built nukes; I am sure would be number one on the list ahead of the USA in that reguard. These arguements are fucking retarded you and the general are making. :rolleyes:

The US broke international law by STARTING A WAR. Pot, this is kettle. You're black.

As I have explained at great length, starting a war, for what ever reason is not necessarily a violation of international law. In this case it was not.

Ahhh, well we in canada having never built nukes; I am sure would be number one on the list ahead of the USA in that reguard. These arguements are fucking retarded you and the general are making. :rolleyes:
Again, did anyone ever say you built a nuke? No? Then STFU, and stop being retarded.

NAFTA is outside the ambit of the GATT. You are confusing the two. Neverthless the Lumber dispute has not yet been fully adjudicated.

Moreover the US is in full compliance with its WTO obligations, as evidenced by the outcome with the dispute involving the EU and the ACP nations.


So you are saying the WTO has NOT ruled on this matter and other lumber trade disputes in the past EVERY time in canada's favour?

Sorry, my US current affairs isn't up to scratch. Would that be John Kerry?
Yep. He recently said on the Tim Russert show that he would sign Form 180. Should be interesting when he does.

Ahhh, well we in canada having never built nukes; I am sure would be number one on the list ahead of the USA in that reguard. These arguements are fucking retarded you and the general are making. :rolleyes:

Canada supplied CIRUS, RAPP-1 and RAPP-2 reactors to India in the late 1960s to India and gave techinical support to the Indian weapons program. Even after India developed nuclear capability in the early seventies, Canada continued - and it was offical Canadian policy - to aid the Indian nuclear program.

To my knowledge such actions, in blatant disregard of non-proliferation treaties, have never been part of official US policy.

As I have explained at great length, starting a war, for what ever reason is not necessarily a violation of international law. In this case it was not.

Too bad Kofi Annan, the UN SECRETARY GENERAL, disagrees with you, is it not?

Too bad Kofi Annan, the UN SECRETARY GENERAL, disagrees with you, is it not?
Whose son is indicted for Oil for Food scandals? And when did Kofi become President of the World anyhow?

So you are saying the WTO has NOT ruled on this matter and other lumber trade disputes in the past EVERY time in canada's favour?

No, I am saying that the matter is not fully adjudicated. When, and if it is, Canada and the WTO can take the appropriate corrective actions if the US fails to abide by the GATT.

Of course, when, and if, this happens the US will abide by the GATT and remove the tariffs before that happens.

Yep. He recently said on the Tim Russert show that he would sign Form 180. Should be interesting when he does.

Our press always stated that John Kerry had an exemplery Vietnam War record. BTW whats form 180?

But if deserting is a crime, then we can't give him back unless you agree to not shoot him.

And btw, a charter is

6 A written grant from the sovereign power conferring certain rights and privileges on a person, a corporation, or the people: A royal charter exempted the Massachusetts colony from direct interference by the Crown.
# A document outlining the principles, functions, and organization of a corporate body; a constitution: the city charter.

Ehh, its not clear, but seeing as you cannot break the US constitution, you can no more break a UN charter, seeing as it is the same thing.

The US has broken the UN woman's rights and its obligation to WTO.

Any more examples?

And btw, the Herr General is a poopy-head err troll, and as such we shall not feed him nor listen to him.

I have never heard of Canoe.ca. Is it valid? And send the moron home after the US agrees not to shoot him.

Again, did anyone ever say you built a nuke? No? Then STFU, and stop being retarded.

sure jackass, no one would ever think that he was infering that canada built nukes from his statements. :rolleyes:

I know canada the world over is known as a huge supplier of ballistic missles, again :rolleyes:

Also the massive amount of proof this fruit is listing is amazing. You know the one that lists canada as being a huge missle producer.

LOL what a pair.

sure jackass, no one would ever think that he was infering that canada built nukes from his statements. :rolleyes:

I know canada the world over is know as a huge supplier of ballistic missles, again :rolleyes:

Also the massive amounts of proof this fruit is listing is amazing. You know the one that lists canada as being a huge missle producer.

LOL what a pair.
Who's "infering" anything? He gave proof, either ask him to source it or refute. Or troll more in poor English. Whatever floats your boat.

Too bad Kofi Annan, the UN SECRETARY GENERAL, disagrees with you, is it not?

Why should I care what that international criminal thinks? Stalin would probably interpret international law differently as well. The fact remains that in this case, both you and Annan are wrong.

If you want to call the war illegal, please point to something in the corpus of US Jus Gentium Privatum or Jus Cogens that would militate such a position. Otherwise you must accept that the US actions were not illegal - Annan's apologetics for tyrants aside.

Our press always stated that John Kerry had an exemplery Vietnam War record. BTW whats form 180?

Exemplary? ROFLMAO!!!! AS IF!

Form 180 is a US Dept. of Defense form used to request the release of a complete military record. John Kerry has consistently refused to sign one.

But if deserting is a crime, then we can't give him back unless you agree to not shoot him.

Says who? The agreement? No...

No, I am saying that the matter is not fully adjudicated. When, and if it is, Canada and the WTO can take the appropriate corrective actions if the US fails to abide by the GATT.

Of course, when, and if, this happens the US will abide by the GATT and remove the tariffs before that happens.

And then in 2 years the USA will again put punative duties on lumber or some other commodity and this process will begin anew. Of course canada will win of course as the USA has no basis in fact, just vote gathering i guess...

These people are pathetic for abandoning their comrades that are still in Iraq fighting.

Whose son is indicted for Oil for Food scandals? And when did Kofi become President of the World anyhow?

And his son is an indication of him how, you moron?

Too bad Kofi Annan, the UN SECRETARY GENERAL, disagrees with you, is it not?

Who???

Exemplary? ROFLMAO!!!! AS IF!

Form 180 is a US Dept. of Defense form used to request the release of a complete military record. John Kerry has consistently refused to sign one.

It was our press that said that, not me. Besides, I don't know if I'd want my military record made public.

Who's "infering" anything? He gave proof, either ask him to source it or refute. Or troll more in poor English. Whatever floats your boat.


Someone who trolls and tends to lose arguements goes off about grammer....

What proof did the guy give? His gave a opinion, I dont any bloody links knucklehead.

And his son is an indication of him how, you moron?
Bad parenting. And you still haven't addressed how he has any bearing of international importance.

Someone who trolls and tends to lose arguements goes off about grammer....

What proof did the guy give? His gave a opinion, I dont any bloody links knucklehead.
Actually, people whose "grammer" is so pathetic that their "arguements" are lost tend to lose said "arguements." If he gave you links to his assertions, would you shut up?

But if deserting is a crime, then we can't give him back unless you agree to not shoot him.

And btw, a charter is

6 A written grant from the sovereign power conferring certain rights and privileges on a person, a corporation, or the people: A royal charter exempted the Massachusetts colony from direct interference by the Crown.
# A document outlining the principles, functions, and organization of a corporate body; a constitution: the city charter.

Ehh, its not clear, but seeing as you cannot break the US constitution, you can no more break a UN charter, seeing as it is the same thing.

The US has broken the UN woman's rights and its obligation to WTO.

Any more examples?

And btw, the Herr General is a poopy-head err troll, and as such we shall not feed him nor listen to him.

I have never heard of Canoe.ca. Is it valid? And send the moron home after the US agrees not to shoot him.

You may choose to characterize me as a "poopy-head err troll" all you wish. This does not alter the fact that the UN charter is not a treaty for the purpose of US Jus Gentium Privatum , and as such has no bearing on this matter.

It is a declaration of aspirational priciples - like most of the nonsense from the UN - and has no effective force of law. Much like, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human rights which the UK consitently ignores. No one has accused the UK of violating international law in that case, for the simple reason that they are not.

(More interestingly is the UK's posture towards the European court of human rights. In that case it is almost certain that the UK is violating international law.)

Yes, american soldiers signed on to defend this nation. All they ask in turn is that we do not send them into war where war is not neccesary. The bush administration arbitrarily started a war, lied about weapons of mass destruction that do not and never did exist, and have fought for their own corporate gain.

Soldiers are unhappy because they don't want to murder freedom fighters for halliburton. Yes, freedom fighters. People who fear a shiia backlash against them. People who have been at war for thousands of years, that understand that many shiia want them dead. Freedom fighters who want their portion of iraq to stay free from a theocracy which is what the shiaa will make it into.

Soldiers have been pushed into a war that was unnecesarry that does not defend america but instead revives american imperialism. They understand that without warriors there can be no war.

The national guard exists do defend us in case of invasion, that is what their trained for. They are NOT an occupation force. God bless every soldier in iraq with a devotion to duty even when our leaders are wrong, and god bless the ones who wont kill for halliburton anymore. May god have mercy on bush, because he and his cabinet have a lot of blood on their hands and a lot to answer for.

Bad parenting.

Uncoherent...

And you still haven't addressed how he has any bearing of international importance.

He knows much more int'l law than you do. Simple.

Uncoherent...



He knows much more int'l law than you do. Simple.
Actually, uncoherent is incoherent.

So a priest never sins? He knows a lot more about it than you do...

And then in 2 years the USA will again put punative duties on lumber or some other commodity and this process will begin anew. Of course canada will win of course as the USA has no basis in fact, just vote gathering i guess...

In the event that happens, then once again Canada has recourse to the enforcement mechanism. The US recognizes this. This is how international law works, it is not some generalized statment about what people would like to be true.

sure jackass, no one would ever think that he was infering that canada built nukes from his statements. :rolleyes:

I know canada the world over is known as a huge supplier of ballistic missles, again :rolleyes:

Also the massive amount of proof this fruit is listing is amazing. You know the one that lists canada as being a huge missle producer.

LOL what a pair.

I gave you a specific example of Canada's recreance in respect of its duties under international non-proliferation agreements. There are countless others. :rolleyes:

I gave you a specific example of Canada's recreance in respect of its duties under international non-proliferation agreements. There are countless others. :rolleyes:
Could you post a link so he'll shut up and stop trolling?

Could you post a link so he'll shut up and stop trolling?

This is the first thing I could find. Nuclear Weapons (http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/MONITOR/monj95b.html)



As the accompanying article by Owen Wilkes points out, Canadian-designed reactors have contributed directly or indirectly to the nuclear programs of every nuclear-weapon state except China.

Our press always stated that John Kerry had an exemplery Vietnam War record. BTW whats form 180?
Form 180 is a blanket release. It releases all of a person's military record to be viewed by the general public. Obviously technically sensitive info and the like is still censored. Anyway, he never signed this form. The only record we have of his discharge etc.. etc.. is what he gave out. All of the pertinent stuff was dated at the oldest after the amnesty given out by a certain president even though his discharge papers should have been dated quite a few years before said amnesty. The details of the incidents for which he got his supposed medals(in particular his purple hearts) is also currently unaccessable. If, like he claimed, the swift boat veterans' claims about his military record had been false and it was indeed exemplary he would have signed Form 180 and unequivocally proven them wrong. Instead he decided to attempt to attack his opponent's character in the dispute, a tactic which is only really used in my experience in one of two situations. The first instance in which you are innocent yet have no real means of disproving your opponents acussations. The other is when you are guilty at least in part if not in whole and so cannot prove them wrong. Since signing Form 180 would have released the info that would have cleared his name to the satisfaction of those involved if he was innocent, I assume the second situation is in effect.

Someone who trolls and tends to lose arguements goes off about grammer....

He really could only considered to have trolled in his first or second comments in this thread. Other than that he has not and he has yet to really lose an argument.

CEC's Captured enemy combatants.sarcasm ;)

I'm going to have to finish my argument now as its 2am here and I need sleep.
Firstly, I do feel sorry that this guy feels that doing a runner to another country is his only option, but clearly it isn't. However, he made a commotment whic he has reneged on and should face the consequences of his actions.
Secondly, the USA did not act illegaly in invading Iraq, but did act immorally. Whatever legal justifications they try to use, it is clear that the war was based on lie, a lie that has been proven to be so time and time again.
Thirdly,
Those poltroons should be shot. No two ways about it. Also their families should be kicked out of the country as a warning to others with like minded cowardly ideas.

In the event that Canada does not surrender these traitors to us, we should send millitary forces to capture them and return them to US soil, where they can be shot.

this kind of attitude does not help your argument. To try and make a sensible argument about this topic with an attitude like that is ludicrous, and gives rise to many peoples attitude that most Americans are gung ho loonies, which they arn't.

However, leaving the US army, last time I checked, wasn't a crime in Canada. Nor has the US requested them to arrest/expell them, at least that I have heard of.
And shooting someone in San Diego is a violation of the California Penal Code, NOT Canadian law. The bottom line is that desertion from the armed forces IS a punishible offence under both Canadian and American law; ergo, Canada has a treaty obligation to return deserters to the United States.

It doesn't matter what you think about military service, the United State of America, her armed forces, president or people. It doesn't matter what you think about Saddam Hussein, the former government of Iraq, Kofi Annan or the United Nations.

These deserters from the United States Armed Forces have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- American federal law. They did so without legitimate legal reason. They are criminals, and Canada has an obligation and a duty to return them for due process by American military courts in Accordance with the UCMJ.

PERIOD.

Secondly, the USA did not act illegaly in invading Iraq, but did act immorally. Whatever legal justifications they try to use, it is clear that the war was based on lie, a lie that has been proven to be so time and time again.

Not really, the proffered reasoms for the war are, in fact, seperate from the issue of its legality in this case. Whether or not the war was justified is a seperate issue entirely. Saying it is based on a "lie" - which is a rather hazy generalization at best - does nothing to alter the fact that the US is operating legally within its rights under the relevant corpus of international law.


Thirdly,


this kind of attitude does not help your argument. To try and make a sensible argument about this topic with an attitude like that is ludicrous, and gives rise to many peoples attitude that most Americans are gung ho loonies, which they arn't.

The primary function of millitary discipline is administrative not judicial. Hence the maximum punishment in the instant case is warranted.

And shooting someone in San Diego is a violation of the California Penal Code, NOT Canadian law. The bottom line is that desertion from the armed forces IS a punishible offence under both Canadian and American law; ergo, Canada has a treaty obligation to return deserters to the United States.

It doesn't matter what you think about military service, the United State of America, her armed forces, president or people. It doesn't matter what you think about Saddam Hussein, the former government of Iraq, Kofi Annan or the United Nations.

These deserters from the United States Armed Forces have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- American federal law. They did so without legitimate legal reason. They are criminals, and Canada has an obligation and a duty to return them for due process by American military courts in Accordance with the UCMJ.

PERIOD.

Finally, someone who grasps the niceties of international law.

What the clause says is that all laws in the United States, including treaties, must be consistent with the Constitution. Judges must hold the Constitution above all other law. In other words, the UN can't tell us when we can and cannot go to war. Asking them is little more then a formality that fosters peace and unity. It is by no means manditory.

edit: so I'm agreeing with you.


That statement means treaties, laws made by the US Government in furtherance of the Constitution, and the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land, not that the first two must be consistent with the constitution, though it is true they are required to be.


As for the soldiers, good for them! The USA government is already in breach of contract, in spirit if not in letter. They agreed to fight to defend this country if it was needed. Most did not sign on to kill other people in an aggressive war on a foreign nation. Its like hiring your cousin for a security guard, then sending him to another state to arrest somebody. Or assasinate them. Notice, in the article, that the man was repeatedly ordered to fire on civilians, women and children, who posed absolutely no threat to him. He was effectively told that he would be so ordered in the future, as that is the only way I can interpret the use of the words "next time" in that context. Leaving aside the criminality of the order, what is the moral thing to do, when you know that if you remain, you will be ordered to kill children? You can be summarily shot for disobeying orders, in the right circumstances. Those people might have been carrying bombs, and a real threat. What is the moral thing to do if honoring your contract means you have to choose between slaughtering men, women, and children, some of whom are going to look like his own daughter, and dieing? I think he has done it. Good for the deserters!

Aside from that, the number of people in the army is often quoted as support for Bush. If nothing else, their actions make clear that the army does not all wholeheartedly support his actions.

And shooting someone in San Diego is a violation of the California Penal Code, NOT Canadian law. The bottom line is that desertion from the armed forces IS a punishible offence under both Canadian and American law; ergo, Canada has a treaty obligation to return deserters to the United States.

It doesn't matter what you think about military service, the United State of America, her armed forces, president or people. It doesn't matter what you think about Saddam Hussein, the former government of Iraq, Kofi Annan or the United Nations.

These deserters from the United States Armed Forces have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- American federal law. They did so without legitimate legal reason. They are criminals, and Canada has an obligation and a duty to return them for due process by American military courts in Accordance with the UCMJ.

PERIOD.


However, deserters can be granted refugee status and extradition refused if the canadian government judges the threats made to them by the US unjust.

You must remember that civilized countries operate on moral principles which preclude them from deporting human beings to countries where they will be persecuted unjustly.

As I have explained at great length, starting a war, for what ever reason is not necessarily a violation of international law. In this case it was not.

So am I right in understanding that the US can sign stuff and later say it doesn't apply to them because of "insert some constitution thingy here".

Yes?

So am I right in understanding that the US can sign stuff and later say it doesn't apply to them because of "insert some constitution thingy here".

Yes?

No, every treaty the US signs - well in the last fifty years or so - contains clawback and derogation clauses that address these issues. Unfortunately, these particular annexes are not widely promulgated and so the casual observer may be led to believe that the scenario you describe is the case.

However, deserters can be granted refugee status and extradition refused if the canadian government judges the threats made to them by the US unjust.

Yes, but there is absolutely no legitimate basis whatsoever for such a finding.


You must remember that civilized countries operate on moral principles which preclude them from deporting human beings to countries where they will be persecuted unjustly.
You're right, and if they were fleeing Communist opression in Havana I'd be the first to come to their aid...but there's nothing unjust about article 85 of the UCMJ. Canadian military law has a functionally identical statute!

As for the soldiers, good for them! The USA government is already in breach of contract, in spirit if not in letter. They agreed to fight to defend this country if it was needed. Most did not sign on to kill other people in an aggressive war on a foreign nation. Its like hiring your cousin for a security guard, then sending him to another state to arrest somebody. Or assasinate them. Notice, in the article, that the man was repeatedly ordered to fire on civilians, women and children, who posed absolutely no threat to him. He was effectively told that he would be so ordered in the future, as that is the only way I can interpret the use of the words "next time" in that context. Leaving aside the criminality of the order, what is the moral thing to do, when you know that if you remain, you will be ordered to kill children? You can be summarily shot for disobeying orders, in the right circumstances. Those people might have been carrying bombs, and a real threat. What is the moral thing to do if honoring your contract means you have to choose between slaughtering men, women, and children, some of whom are going to look like his own daughter, and dieing? I think he has done it. Good for the deserters!

Aside from that, the number of people in the army is often quoted as support for Bush. If nothing else, their actions make clear that the army does not all wholeheartedly support his actions.
WRONG. When you join the United States armed forces, you make an agreement to follow ALLL lawful orders given by your superior comissioned officers.

Do you actually think that, say, the United States Marines Corps is organized as a defensive branch of the military?

Yes, but there is absolutely no legitimate basis whatsoever for such a finding.


You're right, and if they were fleeing Communist opression in Havana I'd be the first to come to their aid...but there's nothing unjust about article 85 of the UCMJ. Canadian military law has a functionally identical statute!


Whether or not there is a legitimate basis is certainly up to the canadian officials responsible for making the decision.

I, for one, consider our war of aggression against iraq to be an offense against soldiers who joined the military and pledged to defend the country. It can be argued reasonably and strongly that our invasion of iraq has worked against our national security.

Which said, a soldier who feels that serving in iraq is itself a material breach of his oath and is met by the US government with draconian punishment for his dissent has, in my opinion, a valid claim to refugee status.

Not really, the proffered reasoms for the war are, in fact, seperate from the issue of its legality in this case. Whether or not the war was justified is a seperate issue entirely. Saying it is based on a "lie" - which is a rather hazy generalization at best - does nothing to alter the fact that the US is operating legally within its rights under the relevant corpus of international law.



The primary function of millitary discipline is administrative not judicial. Hence the maximum punishment in the instant case is warranted.

Firstly, Tony Blair told us we were going to war to take away Saddam Husseins WMDs. WHERE ARE THEY?
Secondly, Queens Regulations state that any member of the British armed forces found drunk in charge of a cigarette lighter can face 9 weeks imprisonment. Be realistic, judge every case on it's fact. that guy you found in Afghanistan who you dubbed "Johnny Taliban" is certainly a case for execution, but some guy running scared that he'll shoot the wrong people by mistake? Get real!

Whether or not there is a legitimate basis is certainly up to the canadian officials responsible for making the decision.

I, for one, consider our war of aggression against iraq to be an offense against soldiers who joined the military and pledged to defend the country. It can be argued reasonably and strongly that our invasion of iraq has worked against our national security.

Which said, a soldier who feels that serving in iraq is itself a material breach of his oath and is met by the US government with draconian punishment for his dissent has, in my opinion, a valid claim to refugee status.
That's an interesting argument...but the fact of the matter is that, and for good reason, enlisted personnel don't get to decide what is to the benefit of the national security of the United States. They have neither the responsibility nor the capacity to make such a determination; they are bound to follow the orders issued them by their superior officers.

Soldiers don't get to 'dissent.' That's not their job.

That's an interesting argument...but the fact of the matter is that, and for good reason, enlisted personnel don't get to decide what is to the benefit of the national security of the United States. They have neither the responsibility nor the capacity to make such a determination; they are bound to follow the orders issued them by their superior officers.

Soldiers don't get to 'dissent.' That's not their job.


All the same, there is the moral question of whether or not a person's life can genuinely become the property of a government, regardless of what they sign or say.

The US broke international law by declaring a WAR, you moron!

US has the right to declare war on anyone!

You would know, with your extensive knowledge of international law...

The General is right. We do have the authority to declare war if we deem it necessary. No one can tell us that we can not declare war. Since Congress authorized the use of Force in Iraq, it makes the war in Iraq, LEGAL!!!!

The US signed up to the UN, and should, therefore, abide by its laws, unless you admit that the US is a rogue state, forfeiting your right to complain when whatever country invades you out of the blue.

But was the UN Ratified by the US Senate?

The General is right. We do have the authority to declare war if we deem it necessary. No one can tell us that we can not declare war. Since Congress authorized the use of Force in Iraq, it makes the war in Iraq, LEGAL!!!!

Saddam Hussein declared war against Kuwait, quite legally according to warped Iraqi law. Does that make his war legal?

Saddam Hussein declared war against Kuwait, quite legally according to warped Iraqi law. Does that make his war legal?
Yes.

So why did Geogr Bush Snr describe it as illegal aggression?

All the same, there is the moral question of whether or not a person's life can genuinely become the property of a government, regardless of what they sign or say.
They should have though of that previous to enlisting. ;) Is any case, Canadian and American law are essentially the same on this issue, and this is a serious philisophical question that is far beyond the purview of a Canadian Immigration Board hearing.

Not necissarily. What I'm saying is that we broke international law, not national law. We can do whatever the hell we damn please (so long as it is constitutional), its just the fact that we are breaking a treaty when we did what we did.

UN had a chance and blew it. In a way, we followed through on international law.

So why did Geogr Bush Snr describe it as illegal aggression?
It is irrelevent to the UCMJ whether the War in Iraq is technically a violation of international law.

So why did Geogr Bush Snr describe it as illegal aggression?
That has what to do with anything?

But they're not draft-dodgers, they're deserters. That's what the article is about. You can complain about draft-dodgers when a draft is called.

Yep and if you desert your unit, you should be fully prosecuted in accordance with the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

WRONG. When you join the United States armed forces, you make an agreement to follow ALLL lawful orders given by your superior comissioned officers.

Do you actually think that, say, the United States Marines Corps is organized as a defensive branch of the military?

The man was given UNlawful orders, and told to expect more.

Further, you are using an ambiguous phrase when you say superior, and actually an incorrect statement as well. The rules are NOT that simple. Seeing as how most of my family is either military, or work support for the military, I do tend to look up the details.

And tactically, no, the USMC isn't really a tactically defensive branch of the military. That has absolutely no bearing on whether you are waging an aggressive or defensive war, however.The marine corps can be almost as useful in a defensive war as in an aggressive one.

But just a reminder from one of the corps favorite songs

"should the army and the navy,
ever reach to Heaven's shores,
they will find the streets are guarded,
by the United States Marine Corps!"

Firstly, Tony Blair told us we were going to war to take away Saddam Husseins WMDs. WHERE ARE THEY?

This is irrelevant. If you accept the erroneous view that the US is bound by the UN charter, then whether WMD existed or not the war would have been illegal in any case.

If you accept the correct view that the US is not bound by the UN charter in respect of the legality of declaring war on Iraq - which as I have explained fully it is not - then this has no bearing. The fact that WMDs have not be found may, indeed, militate that the war was unjustified - although I do not hold that view but reasonable people can differ however - yet it does not make the action "illegal."

Simply because the proffered reason for starting the war has in hindsight, turned out to be probably incorrect, does not mean the US was acting illegally, as the US could have declared and prosecuted the war in Iraq for no reason at all, and still have been acting legally under international law in this case.

Secondly, Queens Regulations state that any member of the British armed forces found drunk in charge of a cigarette lighter can face 9 weeks imprisonment. Be realistic, judge every case on it's fact. that guy you found in Afghanistan who you dubbed "Johnny Taliban" is certainly a case for execution, but some guy running scared that he'll shoot the wrong people by mistake? Get real!

He's a deserter. What do you think we should do, slap his wrist and call him naughty. What effect do you think that would have on the morale of those who are doing their duty?

Damn, I guess we are no longer part of the UN and can seize their holdings in US territory.

Don't I wish!

Saddam Hussein declared war against Kuwait, quite legally according to warped Iraqi law. Does that make his war legal?

Absolutely. Iraq's intial occupation of Kuwait was completely legal under the relevant body of international law.

However, the it is also arguable that the subsequent conditions in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation brought them into violation of international law. But I do not care to argue about that, as it is a highly fact intensive analysis, and would turn into a "he said she said" discussion.

That has what to do with anything?

Because your turning a situation on its head. If a bad guy like Saddam breaks international convention (not law) by invading another country, then it's described as illegal and aggression and taken as such. If we break international convention (not law) and invade another country, then its not illegal because we only broke conventions or treatys, not national or international laws. You can't have it both ways

Anyhoos, its now 3am and I really have to go to bed or I won't be fit for work tommorow. If your still here tommorrow I'll continue. Nice to have an intelligent debate, even if I don't agree. Nighty night.

The man was given UNlawful orders, and told to expect more.
They were lawful as far as US law is concerned, and that's all that mattered.

Further, you are using an ambiguous phrase when you say superior, and actually an incorrect statement as well. The rules are NOT that simple. Seeing as how most of my family is either military, or work support for the military, I do tend to look up the details.

Please, elaborate.

And tactically, no, the USMC isn't really a tactically defensive branch of the military. That has absolutely no bearing on whether you are waging an aggressive or defensive war, however.The marine corps can be almost as useful in a defensive war as in an aggressive one.

But just a reminder from one of the corps favorite songs

"should the army and the navy,
ever reach to Heaven's shores,
they will find the streets are guarded,
by the United States Marine Corps!"
The point is that the United States armed forces are not purely defensive, and you don't enlist JUST to defend the United States on her own soil, as certain people here have suggested.

Yep and if you desert your unit, you should be fully prosecuted in accordance with the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

I recall the same "no blood for oil BS" during Desert Storm. Most of the people then tried to get a free ride from the military and were surprised when they actually had to DO something. Knowing quite a few guys that were over there(one a high level interrogator who has seen some shit) I will give some leeway to those that have been there and aren't thrilled about going back. The rest deserve full prosecution and an OTH at the least.

That has what to do with anything?

As I said before, internationlists have the unfortunate habit of labelling things "illegal" simply to lend credence to the fantasy that any subsequent actions they may take are required by "law."

Just because they said it doesn't make it true however.

Too bad Kofi Annan, the UN SECRETARY GENERAL, disagrees with you, is it not?

Kofi Annan is being investigated in Oil For Food. Should be interesting his involvement as well as that of his son!

Whose son is indicted for Oil for Food scandals? And when did Kofi become President of the World anyhow?

He's not and therefor, has no say in what the US does.

Our press always stated that John Kerry had an exemplery Vietnam War record. BTW whats form 180?

A form to release ALL of your military records

It was our press that said that, not me. Besides, I don't know if I'd want my military record made public.

However, if people knew you served in the military and the press finds this out, they'll press you to release them. If you don't, then they'll figure you have something to hide.

Saddam Hussein declared war against Kuwait, quite legally according to warped Iraqi law. Does that make his war legal?

Yes! Just like we had authorization of force to toss him out of Kuwait makes what we did legal in return.

Kofi Annan is being investigated in Oil For Food.
All this UN wichHunting...reminds me about a quote from Google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22american+media%22+%22kofi+annan%22&btnG=Search&meta=

anybody from the u.s. heard of that UN is not a US Republican party??

Anyone from the US heard that American media is NOT really free?

I bet if Annan fully complied with what Bush demanded, he would never be in any trouble even if his son got $5,000,000.

Yeah, America can trash Anann or anyone who disagree, like it did to the UN inspector, and many mmore. Yes, you can force Anann go and put a new puppet in UN. But it doesn't make the iraq war a bit more legal, it's illegal, period.

I am sure the scandal will be 'investigated' and cooked to the maximum by your 'free' media and Republican Bush party, but in our world eyes it doesn't help a bit to make these arrogant American rednecks look more to the truth or justice. .

The man was given UNlawful orders, and told to expect more.

Orders of deployment are LEGAL ORDERS!!!

Further, you are using an ambiguous phrase when you say superior, and actually an incorrect statement as well. The rules are NOT that simple. Seeing as how most of my family is either military, or work support for the military, I do tend to look up the details.

Yep and I come from a military back ground. The President is the Commander and CHief of the armed forces. Therefor, if he says that this unit should go over, then the unit goes over. PERIOD!

And tactically, no, the USMC isn't really a tactically defensive branch of the military. That has absolutely no bearing on whether you are waging an aggressive or defensive war, however.The marine corps can be almost as useful in a defensive war as in an aggressive one.

It was an example dude.

But just a reminder from one of the corps favorite songs

Mine too!

"should the army and the navy,
ever reach to Heaven's shores,
they will find the streets are guarded,
by the United States Marine Corps!"

But give me the USAF song any day!

I recall the same "no blood for oil BS" during Desert Storm. Most of the people then tried to get a free ride from the military and were surprised when they actually had to DO something. Knowing quite a few guys that were over there(one a high level interrogator who has seen some shit) I will give some leeway to those that have been there and aren't thrilled about going back. The rest deserve full prosecution and an OTH at the least.

My dad was in the 1st gulf war. He wanted to go back to finish the job. Most people that was over there in the 1st Gulf War wanted to end it then. Alot of these people are back to finish that job and they are grateful that they have been given the chance to finish it.

My dad is about at the end of his rotation and will be home soon. He will be going back over one more time.

He's a deserter. What do you think we should do, slap his wrist and call him naughty. What effect do you think that would have on the morale of those who are doing their duty?

I think we should stop making war in the Middle East. I think that would have an excellent effect on the morale of people doing their duty.

And soldiers are required to dissent by US law if their orders are illegal.

They were lawful as far as US law is concerned, and that's all that mattered.

Please, elaborate.

The point is that the United States armed forces are not purely defensive, and you don't enlist JUST to defend the United States on her own soil, as certain people here have suggested.

They weren't lawful by US law. He was not under a real threat. He did not perceive a threat. HE was ordered to shoot down a car that had non-combatants. That was an illegal order.


Elaboration. Superior can be taken to be outranking you, or to be in a superceding position in your chain of command. The first thing you must obey is the Constitution. Then the law, primarily military, but also sometimes local, then your highest superior in your chain of command, then the next highest superior in your chain of command, etc... However, some of you superiors delegate their authority, and the issue of whether you obey someone of higher rank who is outside your chain of command despite standing orders arises, as does obeying dispite direct orders, or obeying without conflicting orders. That situation being without the orders legality being murky. Or someone junior passing orders for someone superior, with or without that superiors authority. Things can get incredibly tangled. And the rules aren't always the same between the army, the navy, and the air force.

No, when you defend something, you want it to be as far from you as possible and still defend it. Standard miltary philosophy. The Iraq war is not in defense of the US, however.

They weren't lawful by US law. He was not under a real threat. He did not perceive a threat. HE was ordered to shoot down a car that had non-combatants. That was an illegal order.

Where did THAT come from? That was one particular case (and you've GROSSLY misrepresented it), as far as I know, nobody involved deserted -- and that would not permit someone TO DESERT!


Elaboration. Superior can be taken to be outranking you, or to be in a superceding position in your chain of command. The first thing you must obey is the Constitution. Then the law, primarily military, but also sometimes local, then your highest superior in your chain of command, then the next highest superior in your chain of command, etc... However, some of you superiors delegate their authority, and the issue of whether you obey someone of higher rank who is outside your chain of command despite standing orders arises, as does obeying dispite direct orders, or obeying without conflicting orders. That situation being without the orders legality being murky. Or someone junior passing orders for someone superior, with or without that superiors authority. Things can get incredibly tangled. And the rules aren't always the same between the army, the navy, and the air force.

Fair enough.


No, when you defend something, you want it to be as far from you as possible and still defend it. Standard miltary philosophy. The Iraq war is not in defense of the US, however.
It's not the responsibility of a soldier to decide that, and even if that were so, it would NOT lift the obligation of a soldier to do his job!x

With such hostile reactions towards these men, it's no wonder they left the U.S as soon they could. As for the ones who are quick to lash out their tongues, just think, what would you do if you were in their place? Unless you're in Iraq, then you don't know jack, and don't say, "will Fox News said this", or "CNN said that", bull.

With such hostile reactions towards these men, it's no wonder they left the U.S as soon they could. As for the ones who are quick to lash out their tongues, just think, what would you do if you were in their place? Unless you're in Iraq, then you don't know jack, and don't say, "will Fox News said this", or "CNN said that", bull.

If I was in there place, I'd still fullfill my obligation as a US Military Soldier.

My dad was in the 1st gulf war. He wanted to go back to finish the job. Most people that was over there in the 1st Gulf War wanted to end it then. Alot of these people are back to finish that job and they are grateful that they have been given the chance to finish it.

My dad is about at the end of his rotation and will be home soon. He will be going back over one more time.

Good for your dad.Tell him welcome back from me. My friend is planning on going back for several years after he gets through DI school to train Iraqi forces.

I'm just saying that some individuals that have been there have reached levels of stress etc that are more difficult for them to handle and I personally would give them a little leeway ( a REMF assignment ie).

I said earlier--he was given unlawful orders, and told to expect more. He then deserted. That event was the primary reason he said he deserted.

As for the rest of it, the soldier agrees in priciple to protect the country in exchange for some benefits and his commanders' agreement not to use him inappropriately. When the commanders, in this case the people sending them off to war, are sending them off for an inappropriate reason, then the social contract binding them together is broken. As I previously said.

Good for your dad.Tell him welcome back from me. My friend is planning on going back for several years after he gets through DI school to train Iraqi forces.

I'm just saying that some individuals that have been there have reached levels of stress etc that are more difficult for them to handle and I personally would give them a little leeway ( a REMF assignment ie).

But they have got to request it! If they want a REMF assignment, they should request it when they get back. If the desert their unit because they don't want to go back. Not only is it desertion but AWOL too.

My dad normally gets about 2 months to be at home with us. Ironically, he gets back the day after I get back from the University. Two months after that, he goes back. I will tell him welcome home when I see him.

I said earlier--he was given unlawful orders, and told to expect more. He then deserted. That event was the primary reason he said he deserted.

Care to point to those unlawful orders so I can see them?

As for the rest of it, the soldier agrees in priciple to protect the country in exchange for some benefits and his commanders' agreement not to use him inappropriately. When the commanders, in this case the people sending them off to war, are sending them off for an inappropriate reason, then the social contract binding them together is broken. As I previously said.

You are so ignorant of these matters it isn't even funny.

I think we should stop making war in the Middle East. I think that would have an excellent effect on the morale of people doing their duty.

Realisitically that is not an option. You act as if George Bush woke up one day and suddely thought "OMFG I have this pwn3r idea, lets declare war on the middle east, tee-hee." And went ahead and did so.

In reality however, how we got to the current state of affairs is a little more complicated than that, and I doubt very much, despite the anti-american rhetoric that is currently chic verbiage for the well dressed european this year, that upon sober reflection anyone supports US disengagment from the region.

And soldiers are required to dissent by US law if their orders are illegal.

Which would not entail, under any circumstances, deserting. Regardless of the order in question.

But they have got to request it! If they want a REMF assignment, they should request it when they get back. If the desert their unit because they don't want to go back. Not only is it desertion but AWOL too.

My dad normally gets about 2 months to be at home with us. Ironically, he gets back the day after I get back from the University. Two months after that, he goes back. I will tell him welcome home when I see him.

Point taken. Some serious evaluation needs to be done on these individuals either way though to prevent future casualties in this area.

Point taken. Some serious evaluation needs to be done on these individuals either way though to prevent future casualties in this area.

I will agree with you!

In reality however, how we got to the current state of affairs is a little more complicated than that, and I doubt very much, despite the anti-american rhetoric that is currently chic verbiage for the well dressed european this year, that upon sober reflection anyone supports US disengagment from the region.

Of course, in your idea of a world here would be no reason to oppose the slaughter of innocents short of being an anti-american "terrorist"...

Which would not entail, under any circumstances, deserting. Regardless of the order in question.

Of course YOU wouldn't think much of following orders to shoot at a car filled with an innocent family.

Of course YOU wouldn't think much of following orders to shoot at a car filled with an innocent family.

That would be an illegal order. :rolleyes:

That would be an illegal order. :rolleyes:

And therefor, the order shall not be carried out.

That would be an illegal order. :rolleyes:

Jolt Sucks!

That would be an illegal order. :rolleyes:

Because having people INVADE a sovereign country for NO REASON is legal? Worst yet, because what you advocate doing to deserters would be even REMOTELY legal? Please, either give me some coherence or stop wasting my time.

Because having people INVADE a sovereign country for NO REASON is legal? Worst yet, because what you advocate doing to deserters would be even REMOTELY legal? Please, either give me some coherence or stop wasting my time.

Actually, your the one that isn't understanding. If a commander gave that order, the soldier is required by law not to follow it and report the incident to the next highest authority.

That would be an illegal order. :rolleyes:

But a common one in Iraq. Which is why the guy opted out. And if he repetitively disobeyed that order, he would probably get killed by Iraqi insurgents, or his superior officer.

If he obeyed them, he'd be committing illegal and immoral acts.

Actually, your the one that isn't understanding. If a commander gave that order, the soldier is required by law not to follow it and report the incident to the next highest authority.

The point is that the "very model of a modern major General" here does not seem to care about what the law is unless it is convenient for him. Like Bush.

But a common one in Iraq. Which is why the guy opted out. And if he repetitively disobeyed that order, he would probably get killed by Iraqi insurgents, or his superior officer.

POINT TO THE ILLEGAL ORDER!!!!

If he obeyed them, he'd be committing illegal and immoral acts.

Again POINT TO THE ORDER and tell me how it is illegal!

But a common one in Iraq. Which is why the guy opted out. And if he repetitively disobeyed that order, he would probably get killed by Iraqi insurgents, or his superior officer.

If he obeyed them, he'd be committing illegal and immoral acts.

He alleges that it is a common order: I find it unconvincing that commanders are issuing orders to "shoot those innocent civillians in the car," if for no other reason than they would be asking for an instant court martial upon being reported.

In any case, if he was indeed given that order, he should refuse to obey it and report it to the next highest authority in the chain of command, until the matter is dealt with. Not desert and flee to Canada.

The point is that the "very model of a modern major General" here does not seem to care about what the law is unless it is convenient for him. Like Bush.

care to point to the order?

The point is that the "very model of a modern major General" here does not seem to care about what the law is unless it is convenient for him. Like Bush.

No, I actually do care what the law says. Which is why I know what it is. You on the other hand are the one who does not care and insist on making it up.

No, I actually do care what the law says. Which is why I know what it is. You on the other hand are the one who does not care and insist on making it up.

It's against the law to shoot deserters and EXPATRIATE THEIR INNOCENT FAMILIES in the US, now isn't it? Yet you seemed to have NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER about suggesting this.

No, I actually do care what the law says. Which is why I know what it is. You on the other hand are the one who does not care and insist on making it up.

Not to mention, showing the order so I can take a look at it!

Those poltroons should be shot. No two ways about it. Also their families should be kicked out of the country as a warning to others with like minded cowardly ideas.

In the event that Canada does not surrender these traitors to us, we should send millitary forces to capture them and return them to US soil, where they can be shot.

Does this even VAGUELY resemble law to ANYONE?

Does this even VAGUELY resemble law to ANYONE?

He means after FULL TRIAL in accordanec with the UCMJ! God, there's gotta be a Court Martial first followed by appeal to the Military Appeals Court!

He means after FULL TRIAL in accordanec with the UCMJ! God, there's gotta be a Court Martial first followed by appeal to the Military Appeals Court!

Explain the family part if you wanna stand a chance, else don't waste my time.

Explain the family part if you wanna stand a chance, else don't waste my time.

Show me the damn order so I can examine it! I'm getting tired of asking!

Originally Posted by Gen William J Donovan
their families should be kicked out of the country

This is as close to being law as an atom is close to being a tree.

Explain the family part if you wanna stand a chance, else don't waste my time.

I was proffering an opinion as to what I believed should happen, not what the law requires would happen. If you had asked me what the law required I would have told you that.

In actual fact, even though execution is a possible penalty for desertion, I highly doubt that it would be the penalty imposred in this case. Further, I would imagine that if the poltroon in question surrenders himself and lives up to his duty, instead of continuing this misguided legal battle, he would recieve a fairly light custodial sentence and a dishonorable discharge.

Show me the damn order so I can examine it! I'm getting tired of asking!

My point is that Gen William J Donovan does NOT CARE about what's law or not! I'm refering to what he said, that's NOT LAW. He simply CANNOT CLAIM TO CARE about what the law is when he suggests the unlawful punishment to deserter's FAMILIES (that's right, not even the deserters themselves) that he suggested.

My point is that Gen William J Donovan does NOT CARE about what's law or not! I'm refering to what he said, that's NOT LAW. He simply CANNOT CLAIM TO CARE about what the law is when he suggests the unlawful punishment to deserter's FAMILIES (that's right, not even the deserters themselves) that he suggested.

Show me the order so I can see it. You dodged my request

But a common one in Iraq. Which is why the guy opted out. And if he repetitively disobeyed that order, he would probably get killed by Iraqi insurgents, or his superior officer.
Actually, no there hasn't until the occupants of a vehicle are known that vehicle is a potential hostile. If the vehicle approaches, especially at any speed it is considered hostile. Also, his account of that incident is a bit odd. Is this guy cav.? I don't understand why he would be the only one capable of firing in his entire platoon otherwise. Even then it's still odd. There should have been more people with heavy weapons in the area, I'm pretty sure.

I was proffering an opinion as to what I believed should happen, not what the law requires would happen. If you had asked me what the law required I would have told you that.

In actual fact, even though execution is a possible penalty for desertion, I highly doubt that it would be the penalty imposred in this case. Further, I would imagine that if the poltroon in question surrenders himself and lives up to his duty, instead of continuing this misguided legal battle, he would recieve a fairly light custodial sentence and a dishonorable discharge.

You are either a horrible person or you are insane, or you're just a troll. You're talking about punishing innocents people with this kind of naturality, yet you dare to claim you have any sort of moral or legal ground? People like you are everything that's wrong with this world. But see, unlike you, I'd not try to punish your family for your existance. You are no different from Saddam or Bin Laden, for they, too, could not care less about the innocent. In your ideal world, though, your cousin would be a draft-dodger, and you'd be expatriated because of him. Be careful what you wish for, scum.

You are either a horrible person or you are insane, or you're just a troll. You're talking about punishing innocents people with this kind of naturality, yet you dare to claim you have any sort of moral or legal ground? People like you are everything that's wrong with this world. But see, unlike you, I'd not try to punish your family for your existance. You are no different from Saddam or Bin Laden, for they, too, could not care less about the innocent. In your ideal world, though, your cousin would be a draft-dodger, and you'd be expatriated because of him. Be careful what you wish for, scum.

Really, it was moreso that I just wanted to use the word "poltroon" in a sentence. One so rarely gets the opportunity these days.

Really, it was moreso that I just wanted to use the word "poltroon" in a sentence. One so rarely gets the opportunity these days.

You didn't have to squeeze in the "family" part to use it. Which proves that you actually believe that. Regardless, I'll not answer to you anymore, because I'm much, MUCH superior to you in all imaginable good aspects. Not that this would be a merit, because you are one that should be addressing EVERYONE as your betters.

You didn't have to squeeze in the "family" part to use it. Which proves that you actually believe that. Regardless, I'll not answer to you anymore, because I'm much, MUCH superior to you in all imaginable good aspects. Not that this would be a merit, because you are one that should be addressing EVERYONE as your betters.

And polite too, :rolleyes:

I've noticed that I have been ignored. Figures.

I've noticed that I have been ignored. Figures.

I was reading your posts with interest. I had nothing to add to them however.

I've noticed that I have been ignored. Figures.
Is there a way to tell if you are being ignored by someone?

To answer someone's question about where I saw "poltroons"...on page 2 of this thread (dang this thread got popular!); it was in "Bloodname: Book 2 of the Jade Phoenix trilogy" its part of the old Battletech series.

The main character laughs at his friend who got into his ancient book collection and was using vastly outdated words like "poltroons". He then cautions him to be careful in using such words, because the book collection is illicit.

...I haven't read that book in 8 years...I should dig it out again, those old Battletech books were good mind candy!

To answer someone's question about where I saw "poltroons"...on page 2 of this thread (dang this thread got popular!); it was in "Bloodname: Book 2 of the Jade Phoenix trilogy" its part of the old Battletech series.

The main character laughs at his friend who got into his ancient book collection and was using vastly outdated words like "poltroons". He then cautions him to be careful in using such words, because the book collection is illicit.

...I haven't read that book in 8 years...I should dig it out again, those old Battletech books were good mind candy!
The irony being those that ban books are poltroons.

I was reading your posts with interest. I had nothing to add to them however.

Wasn't talking about you General. Was talking about some of the idiots on here whom I've asked to produce the order saying what they are saying! They haven't!

US Canada Border Treaty, 2002.

I Believe that Treaty is in regards to Wanted Criminals, since these individuals hadn't been charged with a crime before entering Canada it becomes an immigration and not a legal matter.

Canada's courts have repeatedly decided that Canadian Law always trumps International Treaties.

Thus in relation to the US-Canada Border Treaty, laws regarding Immigration take precedence over Treaty obligations.

So it is this simple, if the courts decide that the individuals would be prosecuted for what is basically a Political belief Canada cannot extradite these individuals without Parliament overriding the judicial decision by invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. There is no way Parliament would invoke this clause in this situation either.

Is there a way to tell if you are being ignored by someone?

I wanted to see the order that these guys are mentioning and they are not providing it nor are the responding to me.

I Believe that Treaty is in regards to Wanted Criminals, since these individuals hadn't been charged with a crime before entering Canada it becomes an immigration and not a legal matter.

These are wanted criminals.

Canada's courts have repeatedly decided that Canadian Law always trumps International Treaties.

So its ok for you to break them but not for the US?

Thus in relation to the US-Canada Border Treaty, laws regarding Immigration take precedence over Treaty obligations.

I thought a treaty was binding regardless? Nice to see the double standard! Thanks!!

So it is this simple, if the courts decide that the individuals would be prosecuted for what is basically a Political belief Canada cannot extradite these individuals without Parliament overriding the judicial decision by invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. There is no way Parliament would invoke this clause in this situation either.

However, under the treaty, they are obligated to hand over the people we want. Good to see Canada is living up to it TREATY obligations.

Thus in relation to the US-Canada Border Treaty, laws regarding Immigration take precedence over Treaty obligations.

So it is this simple, if the courts decide that the individuals would be prosecuted for what is basically a Political belief Canada cannot extradite these individuals without Parliament overriding the judicial decision by invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. There is no way Parliament would invoke this clause in this situation either.

Ah! So unlike the US, which only derogates treaty obligations with respect to the US constitution - and so notifies other signatories at signing - Canada does so with respect to the entire corpus of it's domestic law. (Absent enabling legislation I presume.)

Hence my point that Canada is a far worse offender than the US when it comes to ignoring its treaty obligations.

I wanted to see the order that these guys are mentioning and they are not providing it nor are the responding to me.
He was supposedly ordered to shoot at a car apparently coming straight at his platoon. For some reason, he was also the only one told to do this in his entire platoon. He didn't shoot, and it turned out that the occupants of the car were just normal civs. Something about the way it's told is fishy to me, but I'm somewhat suspicious by nature. There was no illegal order involved.

Ah! So unlike the US, which only derogates treaty obligations with respect to the US constitution - and so notifies other signatories at signing - Canada does so with respect to the entire corpus of it's domestic law. (Absent enabling legislation I presume.)

Hence my point that Canada is a far worse offender than the US when it comes to ignoring its treaty obligations.

Here's an interesting thought. Let's say the Canadian Gov't does open its borders and refuses extradition. I say let them. They'll soon discover what kind of people they're allowing in when the individuals start refusing to follow Canadian law and complaining about things there. That goes for all the actors and singers that were going to leave America if Bush won. The accepting Gov'ts deserve what they get.

He was supposedly ordered to shoot at a car apparently coming straight at his platoon. For some reason, he was also the only one told to do this in his entire platoon. He didn't shoot, and it turned out that the occupants of the car were just normal civs. Something about the way it's told is fishy to me, but I'm somewhat suspicious by nature. There was no illegal order involved.

If its approaching at a high rate of speed and didn't slow down when told too, then no, its not an illegal order.

If its approaching at a high rate of speed and didn't slow down when told too, then no, its not an illegal order.

I seriously doubt that he was issued an illegal order. This poltroon's allegation is an insult to both the intelligence and honor of those presently serving in the theater.

I seriously doubt that he was issued an illegal order. This poltroon's allegation is an insult to both the intelligence and honor of those presently serving in the theater.

I guess we'll wait and see if he'll get his trial and let the evidence speak for itself.

I guess we'll wait and see if he'll get his trial and let the evidence speak for itself.

I agree with you that he should have the opportunity to explain himself, which is why he should be back on US soil doing so poste-haste. If for no other reason than to allow the men he has slandered - in essence every superior in his chain of command - the opportunity to clear their own good names.

Another aspect of this is that Canada is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate this matter. It will be virtually impossible to properly develop all the evidence under the limited scope of an immigration tribunal.

Here's an interesting thought. Let's say the Canadian Gov't does open its borders and refuses extradition. I say let them. They'll soon discover what kind of people they're allowing in when the individuals start refusing to follow Canadian law and complaining about things there. That goes for all the actors and singers that were going to leave America if Bush won. The accepting Gov'ts deserve what they get.

I believe the US should open its borders to Canadian tax evaders, and let them come here to escape the immorally high taxes in Canada.

I agree with you that he should have the opportunity to explain himself, which is why he should be back on US soil doing so poste-haste. If for no other reason than to allow the men he has slandered - in essence every superior in his chain of command - the opportunity to clear their own good names.

Yep, that is what he should be doing but then again, no one said that this was an extremely bright child. If he was smart, he wouldn't have deserted but instead, follow proper military procedures regarding an allegation of an illegal order.

Another aspect of this is that Canada is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate this matter. It will be virtually impossible to properly develop all the evidence under the limited scope of an immigration tribunal.

Yep. So true.

Wow. 17 pages? I'm astonished.

Pity so much of it is devoted to sparring with that unentertaining General Whatsits. When Armed Bookworms took me to task for feeding the trolls, I said there was no problem, provided I fed him rope (to hang himself with).

I can see that since then, people lost sight of the fact that the General really isn't worth the effort - the apoplexy - which I've witnessed on this thread.

Now on with the show...! I got me some popcorn.




*crunch*

I agree with you that he should have the opportunity to explain himself, which is why he should be back on US soil doing so poste-haste. If for no other reason than to allow the men he has slandered - in essence every superior in his chain of command - the opportunity to clear their own good names.

Another aspect of this is that Canada is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate this matter. It will be virtually impossible to properly develop all the evidence under the limited scope of an immigration tribunal.

And what a prime example he is giving to his 4yr old daughter that he abandoned. "Sorry honey, daddy doesn't feel like living up to his obligations, including you, so he is going to run away and point fingers at everybody else. Remember honey, it's always the Gov'ts fault and you're not responsible for anything you do. Bye now."

You didn't have to squeeze in the "family" part to use it. Which proves that you actually believe that. Regardless, I'll not answer to you anymore, because I'm much, MUCH superior to you in all imaginable good aspects. Not that this would be a merit, because you are one that should be addressing EVERYONE as your betters.
Actually, you haven't presented any logical points, so in that respect, you fail. The General is also far more polite, coherent, and literate than you. And more modest. In fact, the only quality you have that he doesn't is the ability to imagine good qualities. You can't argue with the law, you can call the General names, but the law trumps your pettiness.

Actually, you haven't presented any logical points, so in that respect, you fail. The General is also far more polite, coherent, and literate than you. And more modest. In fact, the only quality you have that he doesn't is the ability to imagine good qualities. You can't argue with the law, you can call the General names, but the law trumps your pettiness.

But ad hominems make for a much more convincing arguement, at least from the point of view of an arguer w/o any support.