NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357092,00.html

You know, it's an all-volunteer army. And when you sign up, it's not a secret that you'll be going to foreign countries, and possibly killing people and blowing things up, or supporting that activity. It's not like he was told, "there will be free beer, great food, sunny beaches, and hot women to service you while you hang out overseas dressed in your uniform..."

And the National Guard is certainly not a "humanitarian organization". It's the military, and militaries may do that from time to time, but it's not their raison d'etre.

TORONTO — An American national guardsman who refused to redeploy to Iraq pleaded with the Canadian government on Wednesday to let him stay in Canada, despite an order from immigration officials that he leave within three weeks.

Sgt. Corey Glass, 25, is said to be the first Iraqi war dodger from the U.S. to face imminent deportation from Canada.

"I don't think it is fair that I should be returned to the United States to face unjust punishment for doing what I felt morally obligated to do," Glass said.

"I appeal to the Canadian people and the Canadian government to honor their tradition of respect for human rights and support my decision not to participate in this unjust war."

Like other American soldiers who fled to Canada, Glass's claim for refugee status has been turned down on the grounds he faces prosecution in the U.S., not persecution.

A separate Canadian federal assessment concluded he might be punished for desertion but that did not mean he was at serious risk of abuse in the U.S.

"The applicant faces no more than a mere possibility of persecution," the unnamed immigration officer decided in a decision released Wednesday.

He was given until June 12 to leave or face forced removal.

Glass joined the U.S. National Guard in 2002 believing it was a "humanitarian organization." He said he was told he would never be deployed abroad to combat.

That last part is absolute bullshit out of his mouth.

My heart bleeds for him... Not.

One would think that it is suspicious that a humanitarian organization would find it necessary to issue weapons to its employees, wouldn't one?


This makes me think the National Guard needs a new slogan...
The National Guard: We don't just kill students anymore.

One must realize that to get the girls and the beach, one must be a Marine Aviator [and not helicopters, either]

My heart bleeds for him... Not.

One would think that it is suspicious that a humanitarian organization would find it necessary to issue weapons to its employees, wouldn't one?


This makes me think the National Guard needs a new slogan...
The National Guard: We don't just kill students anymore.

One must realize that to get the girls and the beach, one must be a Marine Aviator [and not helicopters, either]

Well, I dunno if that's necessarily true. The Salvation Army has a militant wing, after all. Just ask Frau Farbissina.

Well, I dunno if that's necessarily true. The Salvation Army has a militant wing, after all. Just ask Frau Farbissina.

Yah, I forgot about that one...

I support this war dodger. Honorable person. Idiot for believing the National Guard is out to do good in the world.

Hm. Guys a Sgt. too. Thats a little...odd that hed be a sarge and not think the Guard also served in combat zones...

Well, I dunno if that's necessarily true. The Salvation Army has a militant wing, after all. Just ask Frau Farbissina.
The Salvation Army really arms its members? Guess I need to watch more movies.

Neither of you got the reference?

:'(

Yes, Austin Powers.

Yah, I forgot about that one...

The Salvation Army really arms its members? Guess I need to watch more movies.

Neither of you got the reference?

:(

Neither of you got the reference?

:'(

You're talking about Austin Powers, right?

You're talking about Austin Powers, right?

*nod* I think several hours of reading up on Photometrics cameras has crippled my brain.

*nod*
That's what I meant by watching more movies... Now if you had made an allusion to "Blazing Saddles" or "The Blues Brothers", we could have exchanged movie dialogue all afternoon. Too bad neither of them made fun of the Salvation Army.

That's what I meant by watching more movies... Now if you had made an allusion to "Blazing Saddles" or "The Blues Brothers", we could have exchanged movie dialogue all afternoon. Too bad neither of them made fun of the Salvation Army.

Darn shame.

This makes me think the National Guard needs a new slogan...
The National Guard: We don't just kill students anymore.

What a shitty thing to say.

This guy is, quite simly, an idiot. I can understand not supporting the war. I can understand not wanting to go. But, HE signed up WILLINGLY, and thus, he must go to Iraq, whether he wants to or not. If he didn't want the possibility of going, he shouldn't have signed up. That simple.

That last part is absolute bullshit out of his mouth.

You're not really a hot wife, are you?

What a shitty thing to say.
It was an even shittier thing to do. Go look up Kent State one day. Find out what was happening to my friends while they were protesting.

I support this war dodger. Honorable person. Idiot for believing the National Guard is out to do good in the world.

They're not. Their out to protect America from internal uprisings and invasion. Their sole purpose is to maintain stability and defend the US from threats foreign and domestic.

It was an even shittier thing to do. Go look up Kent State one day. Find out what was happening to my friends while they were protesting.

Were your friends protesting, or were they the Nation Guardsmen? I'm not trying to pass judgment or anything, your post is just a little ambiguous.

They're not. Their out to protect America from internal uprisings
They should change solely into a disaster response team. Then they can put out the fires in my state. :D

Good old Canada. No longer happy with being super fun deserter land? Fair dues.

who Run Bartertown?!

He signed up.

Sure if he has an abjection to the war, he can refuse to fight ("Just following orders" not being a defence and all that), but when you do that, you stay and face the consequences, you don't run away to another country to avoid them!

Were your friends protesting, or were they the Nation Guardsmen? I'm not trying to pass judgment or anything, your post is just a little ambiguous.
We all protested back then. We'd listen to a lot of speeches, then cheer a lot. Sometimes we tore bricks out of the oval at OSU and threw them at the administration building. Eventually, we'd get tear gassed. Some places it was worse.

At Kent, four kids that didn't have anything to do with a protest were shot and killed by the National Guard. I didn't know any of them, but after that day, you could never be sure what was going to happen.

This guy is, quite simly, an idiot. I can understand not supporting the war. I can understand not wanting to go. But, HE signed up WILLINGLY, and thus, he must go to Iraq, whether he wants to or not. If he didn't want the possibility of going, he shouldn't have signed up. That simple.

Cases like this always make me wonder...
They always bring to mind the cases of the "Mauerschuetzen" in Germany, the East German soldiers guarding the border and in execution of their then duty, shooting people trying to cross to the West illegally.
After the reunification, they were tried and sentenced to jail time. The argument was that they were serving under an unjust regime, and that killing people trying to cross the boder was, despite the clear order to do so, an immoral and unethical thing to do. It was said that they should and could have known better.

So, here we've got a case of someone who feels that what he signed up for is in fact immoral and unethical, and he refuses to go on doing it. And he's still to be punished? Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't if you find yourself in the clutches of military...

Cases like this always make me wonder...
They always bring to mind the cases of the "Mauerschuetzen" in Germany, the East German soldiers guarding the border and in execution of their then duty, shooting people trying to cross to the West illegally.
After the reunification, they were tried and sentenced to jail time. The argument was that they were serving under an unjust regime, and that killing people trying to cross the boder was, despite the clear order to do so, an immoral and unethical thing to do. It was said that they should and could have known better.

So, here we've got a case of someone who feels that what he signed up for is in fact immoral and unethical, and he refuses to go on doing it. And he's still to be punished? Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't if you find yourself in the clutches of military...

Indeed, all those in the armed forces are well within their rights to disobey orders that they may not moraly agree with, but by the same token they then have to face the consequences.

Indeed, all those in the armed forces are well within their rights to disobey orders that they may not moraly agree with, but by the same token they then have to face the consequences.

So, once you've joined the army, you can only hope never to be faced with a moral dilema (which you likely will be, though), because if you refuse to obey orders you'll be punished, and if you obey unethical orders you'll be punished as well?

I find it hard to believe that a system like that is legal...

So, once you've joined the army, you can only hope never to be faced with a moral dilema (which you likely will be, though), because if you refuse to obey orders you'll be punished, and if you obey unethical orders you'll be punished as well?

I find it hard to believe that a system like that is legal...

Heh it is the army, they are like a law unto themselves

So, here we've got a case of someone who feels that what he signed up for is in fact immoral and unethical, and he refuses to go on doing it. And he's still to be punished? Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't if you find yourself in the clutches of military...
In this case, the bum signed a contract that bound each side to certain duties. He clearly had experience with the Guard, since he made rank. It's not as if the Guard changed its mission after he signed the contract. More likely, he signed up with false expectations.

Too damned bad.

He should try every legal means he can find to get out of the deal, but at this point, it's like walking away from a mortgage because he doesn't like the color the house was painted when he bought it.

Heh it is the army, they are like a law unto themselves
Indeed. It's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Essentially a second code of laws that one must be familiar with and obey.

In this case, the bum signed a contract that bound each side to certain duties. He clearly had experience with the Guard, since he made rank. It's not as if the Guard changed its mission after he signed the contract. More likely, he signed up with false expectations.

Too damned bad.

He should try every legal means he can find to get out of the deal, but at this point, it's like walking away from a mortgage because he doesn't like the color the house was painted when he bought it.

One could argue the same in excuse for those German soldiers who signed up for the army and then were placed in a position where they had to shoot civilians... they knew what they let themselves into, didn't they? So the right thing to do was to go on with the unethical shootings, right?

In this case, the bum signed a contract that bound each side to certain duties. He clearly had experience with the Guard, since he made rank. It's not as if the Guard changed its mission after he signed the contract. More likely, he signed up with false expectations.

Too damned bad.

He should try every legal means he can find to get out of the deal, but at this point, it's like walking away from a mortgage because he doesn't like the color the house was painted when he bought it.

To be fair to the guy, he did went through all the motions and filed for all the exception he could think of (like conscientous objector) before leaving.

He said he was told by the recruiters that he would never go abroad and I believe him. Those recruiters will tell you everything you want to hear in order for you to sign up. They're like telemarketers. They'll bullshit you and promise you the moon up until the time to read and sign the contract.

That being said, face the music, man. Go to jail if you have to. Thing is, he was afraid that when facing the music, he would be shipped to Irak anyways. That was not acceptable for him. Can't say I blame him on that part.

It was an even shittier thing to do. Go look up Kent State one day. Find out what was happening to my friends while they were protesting.

As if I didn't know...

I suppose you believe that all National Guardsmen, including myself, are all evil, ignorant bastards because of a terrible incident that occurred 38 years ago.

That last part is absolute bullshit out of his mouth.I've seen the Army try to sell it in that package, actually.

He signed up.

Sure if he has an abjection to the war, he can refuse to fight ("Just following orders" not being a defence and all that), but when you do that, you stay and face the consequences, you don't run away to another country to avoid them!

That's the part that bothers me.

If you really, really stand for something, and you really are a pacifist, then you do what Gandhi did.

You say, "No". Then you take the consequences (hoping that public opinion will make your oppressors look like complete jerks).

I think this applies to people who blow things up as well - if you believe in something enough to blow something up and you get caught, then plead guilty - it's kind of cowardly to then say, "Oh, I didn't do it, I'm innocent".

I would have a lot of respect for this guy (even if I don't agree with him) if he had the actual courage to stand up for his convictions.

so we are still at war in Iraq and its not in fact currently a peacekeeping operation despite ending in 2003

how dare the military prop up democratically elected governments, why its enough to make me sick :mad:

So, here we've got a case of someone who feels that what he signed up for is in fact immoral and unethical, and he refuses to go on doing it.

only it doesn't involve breaking international law

I've seen the Army try to sell it in that package, actually.

proof?

only it doesn't involve breaking international law

A war of aggression doesn't break international law?
Don't confuse a situation that's not been brought before the courts with a legal situation. ;)

A war of aggression doesn't break international law?

America wasn't at war in 2005 :p

he fled from a peacekeeping operation, would you say the same for a U.N soldier running from the Congo?

Don't confuse a situation that's not been brought before the courts with a legal situation. ;)

but they fit so well!

America wasn't at war in 2005 :p

he fled from a peacekeeping operation, would you say the same for a U.N soldier running from the Congo?



but they fit so well!

But a UN mandate would exaclty be what would make such an intervention legal. Without it, it's just a rogue nation doing what it wants with no regards for legality. ;)

As if I didn't know...

I suppose you believe that all National Guardsmen, including myself, are all evil, ignorant bastards because of a terrible incident that occurred 38 years ago.
Logic tells me 'no', but there's still a little of that bitterness left. I don't think you can understand the way that incident affected many of us. In fact, it's an anniversary I remember whenever early May rolls around.

And I don't know you, so you may well fit the description... Or not.

And you don't know much about me, either. Six years later, I became an A-6 bombardier/navigator in the Marine Corps. Retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

But a UN mandate would exaclty be what would make such an intervention legal. Without it, it's just a rogue nation doing what it wants with no regards for legality. ;)

14th August 2003 (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1500.pdf)

2. Decides to establish the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq to
support the Secretary-General in the fulfilment of his mandate under resolution 1483
in accordance with the structure and responsibilities set out in his report of 15 July
2003, for an initial period of twelve months;

and now for the actual UN calls
(http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1511.html) (16 October 2003)
8. Resolves that the United Nations, acting through the Secretary-General,
his Special Representative, and the United Nations Assistance Mission in
Iraq, should strengthen its vital role in Iraq, including by providing
humanitarian relief, promoting the economic reconstruction of and
conditions for sustainable development in Iraq, and advancing efforts to
restore and establish national and local institutions for representative
government;

13. Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to
the successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph
7 above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively
to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and
authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all
necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and
stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary
conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as
to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for
Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi
interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure;

14. Urges Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations
inundate, including military forces, to the multinational force referred to
in paragraph 13 above;

15. Decides that the Council shall review the requirements and mission of
the multinational force referred to in paragraph 13 above not later than
one year from the date of this resolution, and that in any case the mandate
of the force shall expire upon the completion of the political process as
described in paragraphs 4 through 7 and 10 above, and expresses readiness
to consider on that occasion any future need for the continuation of the
multinational force, taking into account the views of an internationally
recognized, representative government of Iraq;

One could argue the same in excuse for those German soldiers who signed up for the army and then were placed in a position where they had to shoot civilians... they knew what they let themselves into, didn't they? So the right thing to do was to go on with the unethical shootings, right?
Morality is a tough thing... It's easy to say anything. It's harder to act on your principles. Shooting civilians is never acceptable -- unless they pose an immediate threat to one's own safety. Shame on the government that requires that. The German soldiers should not have shot civilians. I'm sure they were afraid for their lives, had they followed their conscience. Tough call on their part.

Joining a warfighting force, then running away because you don't want to fight wars is another whole thing. But if he wants to follow his conscience, he should accept the consequences.

Logic tells me 'no', but there's still a little of that bitterness left. I don't think you can understand the way that incident affected many of us. In fact, it's an anniversary I remember whenever early May rolls around.

And I don't know you, so you may well fit the description... Or not.

And you don't know much about me, either. Six years later, I became an A-6 bombardier/navigator in the Marine Corps. Retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Fair enough.

A jarhead, I should've known. ;)

Morality is a tough thing... It's easy to say anything. It's harder to act on your principles. Shooting civilians is never acceptable -- unless they pose an immediate threat to one's own safety. Shame on the government that requires that. The German soldiers should not have shot civilians. I'm sure they were afraid for their lives, had they followed their conscience. Tough call on their part.

Joining a warfighting force, then running away because you don't want to fight wars is another whole thing. But if he wants to follow his conscience, he should accept the consequences.

Huh? Why would the German soldiers have been afraid for their lives?
The question I'm asking here is should there BE consequences for people who follow their conscience (without infliciting any harm on others)?

The East German government at the time was perfectly legal, and so was its army and the orders it gave.

We all protested back then. We'd listen to a lot of speeches, then cheer a lot. Sometimes we tore bricks out of the oval at OSU and threw them at the administration building. Eventually, we'd get tear gassed. Some places it was worse.

At Kent, four kids that didn't have anything to do with a protest were shot and killed by the National Guard. I didn't know any of them, but after that day, you could never be sure what was going to happen.

Sounds fairly scary.

Logic tells me 'no', but there's still a little of that bitterness left. I don't think you can understand the way that incident affected many of us. In fact, it's an anniversary I remember whenever early May rolls around.

And I don't know you, so you may well fit the description... Or not.

And you don't know much about me, either. Six years later, I became an A-6 bombardier/navigator in the Marine Corps. Retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

See, I'd remembered you mentioning being in the military, which is why I was unsure about your comment on Kent.

Huh? Why would the German soldiers have been afraid for their lives?
The question I'm asking here is should there BE consequences for people who follow their conscience (without infliciting any harm on others)?

The East German government at the time was perfectly legal, and so was its army and the orders it gave.
Would the East German government have just slapped their wrist and told them to do better next time? I doubt it. I suspect that a soldier, in East Germany, that disobeyed orders would have suffered far more serious consequences than our 'hero' in the National Guard.

Due process should apply to everyone. Break a law, accept the consequences.

As I said before, shame on any government that requires its soldiers to shoot at its citizens that are not causing any immediate danger to the soldiers.

Would the East German government have just slapped their wrist and told them to do better next time? I doubt it. I suspect that a soldier, in East Germany, that disobeyed orders would have suffered far more serious consequences than our 'hero' in the National Guard.

Due process should apply to everyone. Break a law, accept the consequences.

As I said before, shame on any government that requires its soldiers to shoot at its citizens that are not causing any immediate danger to the soldiers.

First off, military service was not mandatory in the GDR, although it was encouraged.
Secondly, he would have faced pretty much the same consequences : dismissal, and depending on the case possibly jail time.

And the way I see it, a government that orders soldiers to shoot at civilians of any nationality ought to be ashamed of itself. Doesn't stop 'em, though, does it?

First off, military service was not mandatory in the GDR, although it was encouraged.
Secondly, he would have faced pretty much the same consequences : dismissal, and depending on the case possibly jail time.

And the way I see it, a government that orders soldiers to shoot at civilians of any nationality ought to be ashamed of itself. Doesn't stop 'em, though, does it?
I don't know about the first part. From what I've read, Soviet officers weren't afraid to shoot their own troops. I would imagine that the East German officers were encouraged to behave similarly.

Seems like I typed out the second paragraph earlier -- with a qualification.

I don't know about the first part. From what I've read, Soviet officers weren't afraid to shoot their own troops. I would imagine that the East German officers were encouraged to behave similarly.

Seems like I typed out the second paragraph earlier -- with a qualification.

I can't find anything, nor have I ever heard of any NVA soldier shoot by a superior. I don't know if the East German army was encouraged to shoot their own soldiers, but it would seem that if they were, they chose not to.

National Guard....foreign missions.....National Guard....foreign missions, hmm...